delems

Why 1944 SMG in tier 0?

260 posts in this topic

11 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Well, the .45 simply carries a lot more KE
Doesnt have much range, drops really fast beyond 100m

 

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, saronin said:

Or they could just double the amount of SMGs that are available so there is an equal amount of total SMGs in the spawn pool.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, agentwade said:

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.

You do realise he means along with having a fixed MP34 right?

 

3 hours ago, agentwade said:

9mm has more KE than a .45 actually

ok pick the correct term for this

i shoot you with a BB gun at 600fps in the head
It hurts, but does very little to stop you

I hit you in the head with a 6 pound mallet moving at 3fps
you are now deceased, you didnt even feel a thing

What was this fatal force?

Kinetic energy is directly proportional to the mass of the object and to the square of its velocity: K.E. = 1/2 m v2 ?
Me not being a physics guy, if you tell me that is wrong, i'll have to believe you
 

3 hours ago, agentwade said:

The problem is that it also seems to either equal or outperform the rifles in lethality,

Nah, only in a CP fight

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive shot people in the foot with the rifles and killed them.
I dont think i have shot any ei in game with the rifles and had them live, unless i missed or they were majorly lagged or bugged.
Lagged they ran half a block and mysteriously fell over :lol:

I dont think you could even reliably hit me with the 45 at 300m, but i can bang you in the boot with a rifle

 

btw

typical 35 dollar walmart bb rifle around 750fps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, agentwade said:

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.

it has confirmed bugs, the ADS screen is off center, muzzle rise obstructs sights (others have the barrel obstructing, the MP34 goes as high as the supporting hand), and along with every new gun it's held too high and the shooter's sight picture is too far back (looking at the end of stock instead of sight).

we had a bug report thread about it...

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, major0noob said:

the grease gun was just as bad...

the problem is CRS's view on guns, historical accuracy and realism take a second seat to balance, then a third to "arcady-ness", then a fourth to just plain nerfing everything for the joy of the community...

 

there was a guy with a gif of the MP40: it was hitting outside the sight ring, that got the ball rolling. then only me, hatch, and 2 others contributed to "fix thread". there were several nerf this threads between the start of the fix thread and the announcement. this community is soo obsessed with nerfs.

50 + 3

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Imagine for a moment how this will go.

CRS announces they are removing 2 of the Allies Tier 0 SMGs but leaving all the Axis Tier 0 SMGs. Oh, and they are even making one of them shoot better. 

Both sides already whine about CRS showing side bias. How do you think this will be accepted? 

Yeah, I know. You will now spend 2 pages listing all the awesome SMG's that CRS could model for the Allies in Tier 0.  Remember what I said about their small team and almost NO MONEY? 

So how will this be handled in a way that doesn't [censored] off half the player base? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then remove all of them, grease gun, sten mp34 until they can model correct 1940 versions.

Besides, you're wrong, they can model infantry weapons in a breeze.. haven't you noticed all the new infantry weapons lately?
 

Their p1 should be a tier 0 french and brit SMG.  And if they just don't exist, then use the existing ones but give them more.

And fwiw, the mp34 is pretty bad, I never use it unless I have too, probably the worst SMG in game by far.  I hate it.  And I know SMGs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, lipton said:

Ok. Imagine for a moment how this will go.

CRS announces they are removing 2 of the Allies Tier 0 SMGs but leaving all the Axis Tier 0 SMGs. Oh, and they are even making one of them shoot better. 

Both sides already whine about CRS showing side bias. How do you think this will be accepted? 

Yeah, I know. You will now spend 2 pages listing all the awesome SMG's that CRS could model for the Allies in Tier 0.  Remember what I said about their small team and almost NO MONEY? 

So how will this be handled in a way that doesn't [censored] off half the player base? 

I dont see any issue
T0 axis gets a 50/50 split of........(or pick a ratio doesnt matter terribly)

.........9mm smgs

There is no new effectiveness there or anything, it's an mp34 not an fn90

T1 comes and the british get
New stens! axis get nada, france gets nada

T3 comes and france gets M3!
axis gets nada, britain gets nada.

How is there an actual problem in this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, delems said:

Then remove all of them, grease gun, sten mp34 until they can model correct 1940 versions.

mp34 IS the correct version, its the only version that ever existed of it.
It went bye bye because it was too expensive.

the only viable smg for the french besides the mas38, would kind of be the erma emp
now keep in mind the french did not make or buy the erma emp, they confiscated them from spanish troops
and they only procured enough compatible magazines to deploy a few of them. (things of course went sour shortly after)

The MAS38 is primarily what they used.
Some of the WWI guns that have been suggested weren't used except perhaps by partisans, and are actually pretty crappy guns.
The MAS38 wasnt crappy, it just needs fixed is all.

As for the british
The Sten is not in service until tier 1, the lancaster tier 1, the sterling tier 4, Austen is tier 2, Owen is tier 2, M1928 Thompson is tier 0 

mp34, mp40, mas38, m1928 ARE the 1940 correct versions
how is that hard to grasp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez. Whatever. Why do I even bother. 

Yes!!  Let's remove everyting. Or nothing! Or just crap on  the Allied players and remove what they've come to enjoy.

I really don't care anymore. 

This is STILL the dumbest thread EVER!!!

Edited by lipton
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of weapons arriving as soon as they could have, historically.

In a few instances, that's sooner than they actually did, historically, because the historical circumstances were odd which caused the weapon intro to be delayed. 

That isn't true for these two weapons. So, make the game more realistic...introduce them when they were historically first available.

I don't think I'm the only customer that's here because this game does a better job of being historically valid than the shooter competitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Kinetic energy is directly proportional to the mass of the object and to the square of its velocity: K.E. = 1/2 m v2 ?
Me not being a physics guy, if you tell me that is wrong, i'll have to believe you

Because velocity is squared, it is far more dominant than mass.  

 

If you double mass, KE doubles.  If you double velocity, KE increases four fold.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** and remove what they've come to enjoy.

Hmm, I'd probably enjoy weapons 4 years in the future too - where is my axis one?
 

You complain about 10 FG42, in tier 2 on no less for axis, but think nothing of 100s of grease/sten guns years in advance, by nations that didn't even use them?
What are you on ?
 

And FJ were used as ground troops, so it isn't even out of the realm for FG42 to be in flags, as as representative of the FJ ground units our game abstracts.

 

There is tinkering with what was and existed, then there is fantasy land for what didn't exist by people who didn't use them..... See the difference?
 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, merlin51 said:

mp34 IS the correct version, its the only version that ever existed of it.
It went bye bye because it was too expensive.

the only viable smg for the french besides the mas38, would kind of be the erma emp
now keep in mind the french did not make or buy the erma emp, they confiscated them from spanish troops
and they only procured enough compatible magazines to deploy a few of them. (things of course went sour shortly after)

The MAS38 is primarily what they used.
Some of the WWI guns that have been suggested weren't used except perhaps by partisans, and are actually pretty crappy guns.
The MAS38 wasnt crappy, it just needs fixed is all.

As for the british
The Sten is not in service until tier 1, the lancaster tier 1, the sterling tier 4, Austen is tier 2, Owen is tier 2, M1928 Thompson is tier 0 

mp34, mp40, mas38, m1928 ARE the 1940 correct versions
how is that hard to grasp?

Delems is correct however that the Brits are not using the correct T-0 Thompson.  They should have the 50 round drums.  Not sure if that's a real benefit as I think the usual combat load 200 rounds - 4 drums. However we could fudge and say 4 drums and one on the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stankyus said:

Delems is correct however that the Brits are not using the correct T-0 Thompson.  They should have the 50 round drums.  Not sure if that's a real benefit as I think the usual combat load 200 rounds - 4 drums. However we could fudge and say 4 drums and one on the gun.

It was said once a long long time and many forums ago they went with the 20 round mag, to balance the killing parity.

Not saying do or do not change it, just that it was the reason given over a decade ago.

i would make a special request that my avatar could have a zoot suit when spawning the brit smg, if it gets the drum mag?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

It was said once a long long time and many forums ago they went with the 20 round mag, to balance the killing parity.

Not saying do or do not change it, just that it was the reason given over a decade ago.

i would make a special request that my avatar could have a zoot suit when spawning the brit smg, if it gets the drum mag?

LOL that would be so damn funny.. don't forget the brimmed hat to boot.

Well killing parity has been out the window for a while.  Seems the allies tend to get the rule of killing parity most stringently.  We even had our armor numbers reduced again after losing a map in 6 days.

Sunday hit 4 AOs but most the day it was 3 AOs then down to 2. Tz3 kicked in and the AOs dropped to 1. The Sunday prior it was 6 AOs in primetime and 3 AOs in Tz3.  Seems to me after last night low allied numbers WHICH I warned about over and over again the punitive actions will kill the allied side and it is. Its not rocket science.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, stankyus said:

LOL that would be so damn funny.. don't forget the brimmed hat to boot.

Well killing parity has been out the window for a while.  Seems the allies tend to get the rule of killing parity most stringently.  We even had our armor numbers reduced again after losing a map in 6 days.

Sunday hit 4 AOs but most the day it was 3 AOs then down to 2. Tz3 kicked in and the AOs dropped to 1. The Sunday prior it was 6 AOs in primetime and 3 AOs in Tz3.  Seems to me after last night low allied numbers WHICH I warned about over and over again the punitive actions will kill the allied side and it is. Its not rocket science.

Your link between Allied population and some make believe shafting of the Allies is unfounded, and totally opinion driven, if anything the Allies have been brought into line with the Axis side with some units on either side outperforming there direct rival but there are very few on each side and overall it equals out.  The problem is too many Allied players remember the Doc days where they did have an advantage on a [censored] load of fronts and think thats should be how the game goes back to because that was some how OK. Game population is a problem when its one sided but it afflicts both sides its been a issue for years, way before any of the recent changes kicked in so you tying up the low allied numbers and gear numbers/abilitys is rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stankyus said:

Well killing parity has been out the window for a while.  Seems the allies tend to get the rule of killing parity most stringently.  We even had our armor numbers reduced again after losing a map in 6 days.

I dont think we did?
We are hurting as far as the factories go on the french front, which is causing the bef to pour a bunch of equipment in to pick up the slack and naval units to have to be tossed into the fray and they have no armor to speak of.
But that is because the axis had days of literally unopposed and unmatched bombing and the french can not resupply.

No one bothered to intercept nor return the favor :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, merlin51 said:

I dont think we did?
We are hurting as far as the factories go on the french front, which is causing the bef to pour a bunch of equipment in to pick up the slack and naval units to have to be tossed into the fray and they have no armor to speak of.
But that is because the axis had days of literally unopposed and unmatched bombing and the french can not resupply.

No one bothered to intercept nor return the favor :( 

I don't care about losing, if that was an issue to me I'd play Axis - you are totally missing the point. I care about balance..  Its not my opinion that the Shreck, MG34, StugG, Tiger et. al. are better than their counterparts - They are fundamentally that way. However treated in equal numbers.. THEREFORE, having a 50 round drum mag should not even be mentioned as being as a balance issue. It just should be - its the historical BEF Thompson in 39-41. That's the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** ts the historical BEF Thompson in 39-41.

Well, if that can be shown to be true and the normal load out, then I'd say change it.

Standard is 200 rounds per player normally?  So, ya get 1 loaded and 3 spare.

 

But, if this was just for a few, or a single unit, then no. I'd say keep as is.

If something is clearly contrary to real life, it should be changed and corrected imo.

Or, have a a very good, published explanation, detailing why it is not correct and was fudged.

 

Oh, and I'm all for slowing down sprint speeds of infantry and reload speeds of all weapons, they do seem awful fast at times.

But, I'm not expert enough to know if they are off a tad or a lot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stankyus said:

THEREFORE, having a 50 round drum mag should not even be mentioned as being as a balance issue. It just should be

/sigh

The thompson was added to the game when?
And the game had what other units at that time?
And who made it?

come on man stay in context

36 minutes ago, delems said:

Well, if that can be shown to be true and the normal load out, then I'd say change it.

Yea, it is the normal for the guns the brits received, their thompson was not too much removed from Al Capone's
They did not use the M1 Thompson, at least not at the beginning and perhaps not outside of 3rd and 7th commando at all.

The US didnt like the drum mag for military use for various reasons, but that is what they sent the brits.
But the M1928 can take drum and stick mag, and the M1 can only take stick.

The reason the brits got stick 16 years ago was simply someone's idea of fairness.
Not saying it was a good idea or a bad idea, but that was the idea, kept all 3 smgs, which was all there were in the entire game, roughly in the same ammo capacity.
And Xoom and company had nothing to do with it or that decision.

I guess with less stuff in game and no other tiers it seemed to make sense at the time.

Change it? Sure.
On tomorrow's priority schedule? seeing objectively that its not a make or break thing, probably not.
I know i would not want to back shelf a small arms wide audit, and an HE mechanics audit etc for it.

Unless you really kludge it, which will simply look horrible, you need to change the data, redo the artwork (which it needs anyways, compare it to the M1 in textures) and redo the animations.
The flack the game would take over an M1928 sporting a 50 round stick mag would be bad from anyone but us old timey guys.

It's right up there with the M3 on the importance meter in my thinking, is it wrong? Yes.  Should it get moved to tier 3? Yes
Should we do it now? Before the MAS38 has a good looking over? and other in progress things are done?
No, find a good little spot in a cycle where you can set aside time for smg historic correctness, and then do it there, don't derail everything else and dont do it before any functional issues are corrected.

1 hour ago, delems said:

Oh, and I'm all for slowing down sprint speeds of infantry and reload speeds of all weapons, they do seem awful fast at times.

But, I'm not expert enough to know if they are off a tad or a lot.

I think i can outsprint an infantry in an R35 in 1st gear, or a B1 in 2nd gear,  i'd have to recheck that to verify, its been a long time.
But that would suggest we don't sprint terribly fast? maybe?

Depending on what other game / linear scale you compare it to, our guys are quite slow unless it's a tom clancey game.
Doom guy / Quake guy sprints at 62mph.
I know that means nothing aside from what other people are used to.

We'd have to do an ingame test, which hasn't been done in a very long time i don't believe.
I know there is a lot more seemingly weight based variance in who can sprint for how long, you also seem to be able to sprint less in between short rests as you keep going.

I can't say anything from personal experience, i'm short, my legs are always going 90mph and yet the ground is not:P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.