• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
kareca

K/D matilda tier x panzers

111 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, choad said:

Well then you lost me. There are a ton of examples where things are "nerfed" or not historically accurate on Allied side ... as you probably know already. Maybe you were just trolling though.

Axis LMG

Axis Grenadier

British Grenadier neutered

US gets horse *bleep* french cmle 25

blah blah blah blah .... blah.

Good day sir

Axis LMG...  Every infantry weapon in game suffers from BS reload times.  Every single one.  As for the rate of fire and the ability to shoot from the hip, LMGs can be fired from the hip.  Some can even be shoulder fired.  Doing it while running? Well... Again I call BS on being able to do that with every weapon in game.  I have been shooting as part of my job my entire adult life and I have yet to see a person who can accurately engage targets whiles jogging or running.  Every person in game should be slowed to walk speed when shooting.

Axis Grenadier... It's contact fused.  Live with it.

British Grenadier... Never should have been taken out of the game.  The back blast should have been modified to kill the shooter when used too close (goes for Axis grenadier too).  I used to used it the same way.  Point blank right on the sap spot.  It could have been fixed.  CRS chose not to.

US getting French cmle 25...  The M3 should have been modeled by now for sure.  Along with a whole host of other things.

However, you are comparing the above gripes with the whole neutering of the air branch for one side.  Doesn't seem to compute and the loss of players numbers shows it.  Axis air squads are dead.  Past tense dead.  The failure to provide balance on that one cost them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, minky said:

However, you are comparing the above gripes with the whole neutering of the air branch for one side.  Doesn't seem to compute and the loss of players numbers shows it.  Axis air squads are dead.  Past tense dead.  The failure to provide balance on that one cost them.  

-Big Time.

 

The ten players who liked to fly Axis all left.

"Big time" is relative; when you lose 10 of 100 players, that's 10%.

When you lose 10 of 10,000 players... it's only 0.1%.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Axis LMG...  Every infantry weapon in game suffers from BS reload times.  Every single one.  As for the rate of fire and the ability to shoot from the hip, LMGs can be fired from the hip.  Some can even be shoulder fired.  Doing it while running? Well... Again I call BS on being able to do that with every weapon in game.  I have been shooting as part of my job my entire adult life and I have yet to see a person who can accurately engage targets whiles jogging or running.  Every person in game should be slowed to walk speed when shooting.

Axis Grenadier... It's contact fused.  Live with it.

British Grenadier... Never should have been taken out of the game.  The back blast should have been modified to kill the shooter when used too close (goes for Axis grenadier too).  I used to used it the same way.  Point blank right on the sap spot.  It could have been fixed.  CRS chose not to.

US getting French cmle 25...  The M3 should have been modeled by now for sure.  Along with a whole host of other things.

However, you are comparing the above gripes with the whole neutering of the air branch for one side.  Doesn't seem to compute and the loss of players numbers shows it.  Axis air squads are dead.  Past tense dead.  The failure to provide balance on that one cost them.  

Sounds like we mostly agree. I was just pointing out both sides have beefs b/c you made it sound as though it was a one way deal, at least that is what i heard.

BTW ... the notion you can move around effictevely at considerable speed, swing and aim and shoot an lmg from the hip is B.S. All of these videos that Axis LMG appologists post show a 250 lb man struggling to stay upright while firing. Almost getting blown backwards. Hardly compelling. But appreciate the effort anyways.

And firing a grenade 3 feet away from you at your feet to clear a room and running away totally alive is what i was talking about. Great advantage for that weapon i dare say.

Edited by choad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rule303 said:

The tier system should just be changed to each tier corresponding to 1 year.

That's been the case since the beginning.

Quote

 

So Tier 0 should be 1939, Tier 1 should be 1940, Tier 2 should be 1941, Tier 3 should be 1942 and so on.

 

Tier 0 is 1940, Tier 1 is 1941. Tier 2 is 1942. Tier 3 is 1943.

Share this post


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

And firing a grenade 3 feet away from you at your feet to clear a room and running away totally alive is what i was talking about. Great advantage for that weapon i dare say.

The French VB RG, fired from the Lebel rifle, was obsolete in the 1930s. The French in 1940 were issuing the Brandt RG adapter for the MAS36 rifle. That updated adapter fired the HE and smoke shells from the Brandt 50mm mortar system, Thus it simplified logistics, gave French infantrymen much greater firepower (50mm has roughly 8x as many fragments and 2x the likely lethal radius of the German 30mm system), and provided contact fuzing.

It also existed in 1940...unlike the German 30mm system, which should be Tier 1 at the absolute earliest.

The French had 50mm HEAT RGs in 1940. The Germans didn't have effective HEAT RGs until 1942.

I don't know why CRS has this history so screwed up.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jwilly said:

That's been the case since the beginning.

Tier 0 is 1940, Tier 1 is 1941. Tier 2 is 1942. Tier 3 is 1943.

Clearly not.  A number of units exist outside those time frames for balance purposes.

1 hour ago, jwilly said:

The French VB RG, fired from the Lebel rifle, was obsolete in the 1930s. The French in 1940 were issuing the Brandt RG adapter for the MAS36 rifle. That updated adapter fired the HE and smoke shells from the Brandt 50mm mortar system, Thus it simplified logistics, gave French infantrymen much greater firepower (50mm has roughly 8x as many fragments and 2x the likely lethal radius of the German 30mm system), and provided contact fuzing.

It also existed in 1940...unlike the German 30mm system, which should be Tier 1 at the absolute earliest.

The French had 50mm HEAT RGs in 1940. The Germans didn't have effective HEAT RGs until 1942.

I don't know why CRS has this history so screwed up.

Again... this is the problem isn't it.  Some units are moved around for balance while others are left in place.  How that is done is inconsistent.  I understand it is done to balance the game but it seems that it is applied in some cases and ignored in others even when similar circumstances exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some instances we know that CRS has the history wrong because they just didn't have valid data when the game was built, or even some time later:

CRS researched that some Fairmiles were armed with two pounder foredeck guns, and assumed this was the already modeled AT gun. That's incorrect...historically it was the Vickers two pounder pom-pom. Because the game design featured ahistorical Fairmiles-on-inland-rivers gameplay that depended on the foredeck gun having an AT capability, when the mixup was pointed out to them, CRS declared that gun to instead be the WWI-vintage Hotchkiss three pounder...which was installed on a few Fairmiles early in the war, due to desperation for armed coastal patrol boats, lack of any other guns, and some three pounders having been found in an old warehouse. But, that gun never had modern AP shells, so could not reasonably be said to have an armor penetration capability against medium tanks.

CRS researched that in return for providing the French with some Boyes AT rifles, the British had been provided some Hotchkiss 25mm guns. CRS assumed this was the CAMle 39 AA gun, and added some of that weapon to the British OB. That's incorrect...historically the British received a few of the towed or portee-hauled 25mm AT gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2018 at 0:30 AM, rule303 said:

The tier system should just be changed to each tier corresponding to 1 year.

So Tier 0 should be 1939, Tier 1 should be 1940, Tier 2 should be 1941, Tier 3 should be 1942 and so on.

It does, T0 is basically what was in action in france in april 1940, which of course consists of weapons from earlier because that's how things began
T1 and T2 reflect 1941 and 1942, though since there was no mid tier, some cut off point had to be chosen of when to push something over to the next tier.
It of course also causes all things of a given tier to arrive on jan 1st Tier X

Fractional tiers could bring a better feel to that

Tier 3 is where things kind of cease to progress normally right now due to how the original team did the US faction.
The progression ceases, it is the last tier that RDP progresses anything, so things from 43 to 45 land there in a lump all together.
It's a thing that will have to be rectified, not only for RDP but also so that future factions can also operate properly.

There are also some odd choices, that we cant really answer for why the decision was made.
Some perhaps as an intended balance thing, others i am not sure.
Like the M3 smg in way wrong tier?  no idea really.
Axis rifle grenade? perhaps balance? in 1940 the only rifle grenade the axis could have claimed to have was some inoperable rusting relics from WWI in austria
as they had all be destroyed, and no replacement worked on.

The FMB's got semi made up, as i recall, simply due to lacking suitable naval vessels to cover the areas the FMB stand in for, and no resources available
to get them created.
It became the McGuyver boat, and still is for now. It would probably be the only thing not to fix, until such time as a few more suitable ships could be made
to cover the proper areas and such. The FMB and DD are kind of covering everything from small patrol boat to battleship right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M3 Grease Gun for the French makes absolutely no sense. The French literally used 0 Grease Guns, even when they were available. By the time they had become widely available the main parts of France had been liberated and France had resumed local production of MAS-38s. The only other SMG they widely used were British Sten Guns - this should be the alternative SMG available to them imo, but the Sten didn't become widely available until early 1941 with the MK 1 variant, and the MKII later on in the year. Realistically the British should just be using Tommy Guns in Tier 0 for all SMGs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rule303 said:

The M3 Grease Gun for the French makes absolutely no sense. The French literally used 0 Grease Guns, even when they were available. By the time they had become widely available the main parts of France had been liberated and France had resumed local production of MAS-38s. The only other SMG they widely used were British Sten Guns - this should be the alternative SMG available to them imo, but the Sten didn't become widely available until early 1941 with the MK 1 variant, and the MKII later on in the year. Realistically the British should just be using Tommy Guns in Tier 0 for all SMGs.

I dont want to talk about our Carcano or italian smg...... I love that SMG (italian) but it makes no sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally, there were no tiers. That was all jacked in later. Sometimes there would be an explanation for something that really wasn't planned, but which seemed to require explaining ... and this sometimes led to misunderstanding because the response would also be kind of ad hoc since it hadn't originally been planned either ... so it depended on who said what when. Over time, this remained kind of make it up as you go along, and the bottom line shifted enough times that it's not surprising people became a little confused. Basically, when the book comes out ... it will make more sense. Maybe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

Like the M3 smg in way wrong tier?  no idea really.
Axis rifle grenade? perhaps balance?

The irony..

M3 could have been answered as a "perhaps balance". The SMGs still need a lot of work anyhow and until they get the work necessary moving the SMGs around

Axis grenadier - do you see the irony how the French RG was handled?

That being said, the US does not have a RG.. I don't think NOT having an RG yet has upset balance.. no where near not having the M1919.. and likewise in perspective, if the Axis did not have the MG34 it would be much more of an issue toward balance than not having a RG.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** having a RG

btw, which is nearly completely worthless since the HE audit, nothing but a rile now.

Game needs the infantry/crew DM audit in a big way.

 

Share this post


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

*** having a RG

btw, which is nearly completely worthless since the HE audit, nothing but a rile now.

Game needs the infantry/crew DM audit in a big way.

 

Yup, German grenadier is 100% worthless now. Only spawn it to use it as another rifleman.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, stankyus said:

M3 could have been answered as a "perhaps balance". The SMGs still need a lot of work anyhow and until they get the work necessary moving the SMGs around

Perhaps, in a sense of "Hey you have 2 kinds and i only have 1"
That's more aesthetic i guess than functional, whether i have 50 MAS38 or 35 MAS38 and 15 M3 does not seem to make any difference in the grand scale of things

 

6 hours ago, stankyus said:

Axis grenadier - do you see the irony how the French RG was handled?

Not really sure?
I'd have mostly likely just gone the historical route, axis would get theirs later, brits would have some HEAT grenades (and make sure they dont over function)
Of course it is easy for me to sit and say I'd do this or I'd do that, i was not sitting there back then contending with everything going on and trying to figure out how to not
ride the S-1st train right into chapter 11.

Hell, a lot of things i would have probably done may have well jumped a fast track right onto that train, who knows.
Easy to say i woulda after the fact

I dont think rifle grenades of any faction get used enough for anyone to think about it in a balance sense from an actual playing the game stand point.
From a numbers counting stand point yes, but from the aspect of the guy on the ground, probably not so much.
They seem to mostly go into use when rifles run low, but maybe that might change once INF damage function rebuilding is finished?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

I dont think rifle grenades of any faction get used enough for anyone to think about it in a balance sense from an actual playing the game stand point.
From a numbers counting stand point yes, but from the aspect of the guy on the ground, probably not so much.
They seem to mostly go into use when rifles run low, but maybe that might change once INF damage function rebuilding is finished?

Earlier, of course, British HEAT rifle grenades were way unrealistically lethal to tanks and non-lethal to the shooter and other nearby infantry, so they were used quite a bit, alongside the fantasy "HEAT sapper charges". That was during the period when it was considered marketing-necessary for Rambo infantrymen to readily kill tanks single-handed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

Perhaps, in a sense of "Hey you have 2 kinds and i only have 1"
That's more aesthetic i guess than functional, whether i have 50 MAS38 or 35 MAS38 and 15 M3 does not seem to make any difference in the grand scale of things

 

Not really sure?
I'd have mostly likely just gone the historical route, axis would get theirs later, brits would have some HEAT grenades (and make sure they dont over function)
Of course it is easy for me to sit and say I'd do this or I'd do that, i was not sitting there back then contending with everything going on and trying to figure out how to not
ride the S-1st train right into chapter 11.

Hell, a lot of things i would have probably done may have well jumped a fast track right onto that train, who knows.
Easy to say i woulda after the fact

I dont think rifle grenades of any faction get used enough for anyone to think about it in a balance sense from an actual playing the game stand point.
From a numbers counting stand point yes, but from the aspect of the guy on the ground, probably not so much.
They seem to mostly go into use when rifles run low, but maybe that might change once INF damage function rebuilding is finished?

Agree, I like the mas38.. however just to pick nits, its not 2 kinds.. its 3 until the Italian forces are flushed out and given their own divisions. 

Likewise as per the RGs, as Mos has pointed out, ATM they are all pretty much worthless unless you are standing.  I still get kills and killed by them from time to time post HE audit. TBH I don't see a point in moving them to perspective tiers period. Not till HEAT Rgs are back in play to where IMHO should be limited toward tier advancement. As far as the French RG.. go back and read Jwilly's post on them. The point being the scenario you brought up about using old ww1 RGs for the Germans is exactly what happened to the French.

IMHO up until when the SMG audit is functioning as per accuracy, they are all very inaccurate and the SMGs like the MP40 and Mas38 have way to much kick, and all have way too much muzzle flash.. thus determining balance is rather mute because they are all inaccurate.. some more than others.

TBH, balance issues tend to be focused around force multipliers, not bolt action, or smgs.. and ATM RGs. They are Tanks and MGs (prob planes too but I don't fly enough to comment). Things that can produce mass casualty with greater ease. We are majoring on the minors with the infantry damage consistent that has borked HE which is a much more concerning issue that when fixed will upset what we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even really think balance is necessary for most infantry weapons (so long as total infantry numbers are similar between brigades,) simply because they AREN'T force multipliers. I mean, it's no secret that the Allies have better bolt guns than the Axis because of their WAY easier sights which makes it much easier to fire accurately quickly, and more importantly the British Lee Enfield which has twice the magazine capacity AND a much faster bolt throw. It's no secret that the Allied SMGs ARE easier to aim because they have better sights, and the higher ROF and damage of the Tommy Gun in particular makes it FAR superior imo as an SMG than the MP40 and MP34 and even the Beretta right now because all the SMGs are wildly inaccurate to begin with and you can hipfire the Tommy Gun far more effectively and be satisfied that the target will drop. It's no secret that the German rifle grenadier whilst still [censored] like rifle grenadiers in general is still better than the Allied grenadiers because its contact fused, not time based. It's no secret the Boyes ATR is better than the German PZB39 because of its 5 round magazine and better sights.

The only real infantry classes however that can make tremendous differences on the battlefield are force multipliers. This means sappers and RPATs BECAUSE they can kill other force multipliers like tanks, the ATGs because they can kill tanks, the LMGs/Auto Rifles because they can completely cut a flag and absolutely slaughter anything in their kill zone, and the Engineer because he can of course kill FBs, repair AIs and rebuild bridges. The other infantry force multipliers in reality (grenadiers, mortars and snipers) are largely useless right now except but to give more rifles to throw at the enemy. The mortar and grenades have too low a blast radius and damage output to be remotely useful except in almost never happen situations, and situations where sniper rifles really shine at long range don't happen often just because of the nature of infantry combat being entirely focused within towns and cities for the most part. SMGs and Rifles in my honest opinion can be entirely ignored for balance as their sole purpose is to just take and hold CPs by throwing themselves at the enemy in large numbers.

I also don't mind the existence of sappers - I know HEAT charges of course didn't really exist, but by no means were infantry at short range like city streets helpless against tanks. In real life, things we can't do in game, did happen like infantry physically boarding tanks and shooting the crewmembers in the face, or putting grenades and bullets through vision slits. Australians for example were very well known for doing this in Tobruk as they had no other means of taking out German and Italian tanks. They would lay in ambush and climb aboard the tanks and take out the unsuspecting crew with grenades or submachine guns. Alternatively, they would remain in hiding and let the tanks pass and instead focus on killing the supporting infantry that followed the tanks, and then let the tanks run blind towards the enemy completely unaware that their escorts had been wiped out and then get slaughtered by British ATGs entrenched in the main defensive lines of Tobruk. The existence of sappers and HEAT charges in game make a good alternative to make-up for the fact that infantry can't just do what they sometimes often did in reality when the terrain and cover allowed and board tanks and kill the crews inside.

Edited by rule303

Share this post


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

The point being the scenario you brought up about using old ww1 RGs for the Germans is exactly what happened to the French.

I kind of meant that to be more tongue in cheek
in 1939/1940, the axis had 0 rifle grenades to use.
The ones left from WWI had all been destroyed for the most part aside from some rusting relics that where of no use except for a museum display
and in no quantity to even be used as thrown melee weapons.

So, following reality, the axis really should not have an RG until later.

On that same note, everyone's sapper should really be an HE satchel of some sort, that has an added ability to perhaps toss it under a vehicle, or into a building.
Trading the rifle for carrying capacity seems an OK game play thing?
Early tanks might be vulnerable through the very thin floor maybe? as well as detracking and making them a juicy immobile ATG target, and throwing a satchel into a packed bunker would be pretty awesome

And then later, only the Axis would RDP a actual magnetic HEAT mine, everyone else would be making due with a bag of comp B or something similar.
Of course you'd want to make the things as dangerous as they were, as best as possible, that mag HEAT thing was just as liable to take out the user as the target
if you didn't get the hell away from it.

But see, i am not really bothered by situations where the other guy had UBERthing on this day, and historically, i only had a plain club on the same day.
I'll just get some guys together and sneak up behind him and beat the pants off him with plain clubs, but not everyone is terribly open to that

 



 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

But see, i am not really bothered by situations where the other guy had UBERthing on this day, and historically, i only had a plain club on the same day.
I'll just get some guys together and sneak up behind him and beat the pants off him with plain clubs, but not everyone is terribly open to that

I for one would actually prefer keep gear tables and such completely historically realistic regardless of balance and let people learn and play to their side's strengths and weaknesses in game and formulate actually realistic strategies, rather than give everybody the exact same balanced setup.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rule303 said:

I for one would actually prefer keep gear tables and such completely historically realistic regardless of balance and let people learn and play to their side's strengths and weaknesses in game and formulate actually realistic strategies, rather than give everybody the exact same balanced setup.

I couldn't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, rule303 said:

I don't even really think balance is necessary for most infantry weapons (so long as total infantry numbers are similar between brigades,) simply because they AREN'T force multipliers. I mean, it's no secret that the Allies have better bolt guns than the Axis because of their WAY easier sights which makes it much easier to fire accurately quickly, and more importantly the British Lee Enfield which has twice the magazine capacity AND a much faster bolt throw. It's no secret that the Allied SMGs ARE easier to aim because they have better sights, and the higher ROF and damage of the Tommy Gun in particular makes it FAR superior imo as an SMG than the MP40 and MP34 and even the Beretta right now because all the SMGs are wildly inaccurate to begin with and you can hipfire the Tommy Gun far more effectively and be satisfied that the target will drop. It's no secret that the German rifle grenadier whilst still [censored] like rifle grenadiers in general is still better than the Allied grenadiers because its contact fused, not time based. It's no secret the Boyes ATR is better than the German PZB39 because of its 5 round magazine and better sights.

The only real infantry classes however that can make tremendous differences on the battlefield are force multipliers. This means sappers and RPATs BECAUSE they can kill other force multipliers like tanks, the ATGs because they can kill tanks, the LMGs/Auto Rifles because they can completely cut a flag and absolutely slaughter anything in their kill zone, and the Engineer because he can of course kill FBs, repair AIs and rebuild bridges. The other infantry force multipliers in reality (grenadiers, mortars and snipers) are largely useless right now except but to give more rifles to throw at the enemy. The mortar and grenades have too low a blast radius and damage output to be remotely useful except in almost never happen situations, and situations where sniper rifles really shine at long range don't happen often just because of the nature of infantry combat being entirely focused within towns and cities for the most part. SMGs and Rifles in my honest opinion can be entirely ignored for balance as their sole purpose is to just take and hold CPs by throwing themselves at the enemy in large numbers.

I also don't mind the existence of sappers - I know HEAT charges of course didn't really exist, but by no means were infantry at short range like city streets helpless against tanks. In real life, things we can't do in game, did happen like infantry physically boarding tanks and shooting the crewmembers in the face, or putting grenades and bullets through vision slits. Australians for example were very well known for doing this in Tobruk as they had no other means of taking out German and Italian tanks. They would lay in ambush and climb aboard the tanks and take out the unsuspecting crew with grenades or submachine guns. Alternatively, they would remain in hiding and let the tanks pass and instead focus on killing the supporting infantry that followed the tanks, and then let the tanks run blind towards the enemy completely unaware that their escorts had been wiped out and then get slaughtered by British ATGs entrenched in the main defensive lines of Tobruk. The existence of sappers and HEAT charges in game make a good alternative to make-up for the fact that infantry can't just do what they sometimes often did in reality when the terrain and cover allowed and board tanks and kill the crews inside.

I have played both sides for years.. While I would agree that the majority of the infantry game should have equal numbers with the exception of the BEF and French LMGs..  I disagree with you about the assertion of the allied riffle being superior to the k98.  I actually prefer the k98 and mas36 over the M1903 and Enfield by and large. I find the US riffle at the bottom of the barrel, where as the ROF of the Enfield makes up for its difficulty.  The German PB ATR actually has more penetration than the Boys, and a larger capacity than the boys, no reload issues. Its the armor thickness they face that makes the PB more difficult beyond T0.

The reason why I did not put the ATG in the mix its a numbers game balance already for the most part, and while they can be a force multiplier their lack of mobility and vulnerability negates most the force multiplier issue.

I would also put the semi auto riffles in the mix - over looked that. When the BEF did not have semi autos it was a slaughter house playing BEF even with the upped ROF for the Enfield. So I would agree with that.

The SMGs - I find them all very similar overall with some better in other areas than others. MP40 and Sten are prob the best all around SMGs. I find the MP34 very similar to the Mas38.. decent CQB. not so good at longer ranges. Thompson is a CQB weapon period and good at it. M3 not a good CQB, but nice for longer ranges, The Italian SMG is its equal in longer range engagement, buts ROF makes it a pretty decent CQB weapon. That's the way I find them from experience which is part fact - but part anecdotal therefore its opinion.  However when the small arms audit happens.. The Thompson is going to be out ranged by all the other SMGs - 50m effective.. but the MP40, Sten, M3 and Italian SMGs will all have very similar medium range accuracy - 100m effective and the king of the SMG will in fact be the MP34. 200m effective. That is if what I have read about them is correct and not group think reposting of the same information on them on the internet.

My point being is simply. No small arms audit - infantry smg balance issues are mute ( I personally don't see one) - thus moving them around now just means they get moved again.  RGs do not create a balance issue.  I do not miss the RG in the US kit at all. Certainly it would be cool to get the RG but its not hurting us. Its a very rare thing to say - "damn, I could use a RG about now"  However its no where near as important as getting the M1919 in play.  I always am saying I could use the M1919 about now.

To me the most important equipment issues are the HE damage consistent fix and small arms audit. ALL the BS we currently whine about quite a bit - are couched in those TWO items. Planes absorbing too much punishment, cant hit the broad side of a barn, have to have a near direct hit with an 88 to kill infantry, bombs cant kill tanks or sink DDs, StuH is a POS, powder puff bombs, dropping too low with out damaging the plane, this SMG is wildly inaccurate, Axis grenadier shooting at his feet and killing ei and living, my grenade wont kill EI unless they are standing next to it.. etc.  I have no idea why this is not a top priority when Scotsman stated all that data was done, fixed and handed over to CRS to add it in months before he left the CRS team and game.  ONLY then can we really move on and progress in a positive direction.. or new AFVs like the CS tanks and STuH are just modelling time and money drain. The best thing the CS tanks have are the MGs and smoke. The only CS tank we have with AT capability is the CH5 and they forgot to add in the ability to range it making it just a MG bunker and HE depot spammer.  The StuH has the best HE in the game from a AFV... yet its worthless until the fix. I think it has 10 AP or mb 5 cant remember but that is not what the AFV is intended for.. its a SPG, not a TD.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rule303 said:

I for one would actually prefer keep gear tables and such completely historically realistic regardless of balance and let people learn and play to their side's strengths and weaknesses in game and formulate actually realistic strategies, rather than give everybody the exact same balanced setup.

Not enough ppl to come remotely close to doing this and not enough things to make up for the weakness with strengths.  IE Artillery and heavy bombers, numerical superiority, industrial superiority etc..  Even if we had 50 Sherman 75s for every 10 P4Gs and 1 Tiger, if you don't have the ppl to man those Shermans - its futility. IF you do, its a route. 

Currently if we go to a historical tier based system in past T1.. the game goes heavily lopsided till mid to late 44 in favor of the Axis.. SEE the need for population, the allies would have to overpopulate the Axis during those tiers and for as long as I can remember the Axis have always had a larger player bench to pull from. From a gamers perspective, which is not a military mandate of order.. ppl don't play when equipment balance issues are crap.

Share this post


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

I actually prefer the k98

Not a bad choice depending on what aspec you view it from.
The K98k is a larger caliber than the the allied rifles, and it has a higher velocity than the US and brit
K98 is 32 caliber, enfield and the 30-06 are 30 caliber.

The MAS36 has a higher velocity than the K98k but it come in nearly at the bottom of the caliber and weight, so it loses it's velocity advantage fast over distance.

The Italian carcano comes in at the bottom with the smallest caliber.

What that boils down to is the K98k having a better chance at range to impart the fatal number of joules, and Stanky is pretty good at reaching out and touching you
fatally at range.

 

Edited by Merlin51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

Not a bad choice depending on what aspec you view it from.
The K98k is a larger caliber than the the allied rifles, and it has a higher velocity than the US and brit
K98 is 32 caliber, enfield and the 30-06 are 30 caliber.

The MAS36 has a higher velocity than the K98k but it come in nearly at the bottom of the caliber and weight, so it loses it's velocity advantage fast over distance.

The Italian carcano comes in at the bottom with the smallest caliber.

What that boils down to is the K98k having a better chance at range to impart the fatal number of joules, and Stanky is pretty good at reaching out and touching you
fatally at range.

 

You get it..

I find the k98 superior in lateral tracking over the allied weapons. I have not used the Carcano in game so I cannot speak to it, but if its worse than the M1909.. I feel sorry for the Italian riflemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.