• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      TOS Change regarding the Forums   11/23/2018

      Rule 23 is in discussions.  The official change will come out soon.  It will go effect Jan 1st. As it stands from this point.  Political and religious posts are allowed in off topic.  Be mindful to be respectful to each other.   That is all for now. Thank you for your continued support and patience.
Mosizlak

Reducing auto supply...

91 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, malvoc said:

Yeah merlin well axis lmg shouldn't be fired from hip and should involve a2-3 man team  like in real life to huh???

I did watch a video on YouTube where someone did successfully fire it from the hip solo w/o getting planted on their rear. Took all 260 lb's of him though. I also saw a video of a Sasquatch one time, it was pretty cool - a little grainy though.

 If they modeled a 260 lb Axis soldier - than I'm all in for the hip fire. Not sure how fleet afoot he would be though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** As well the FG-42 should not be in regular Heer supply

There is no FG-42 in Heer flags - until tier 3.  And when they are, we get a whole 15 of them maybe.

At least the FG-42 existed in 1943, unlike a grease gun in 1940...... or 1941.... or 1942.....

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mrgarand said:

Merlin I understand what it is but it should be in LW ground and Paras only, (maybe replace 1 brig in a couple existing divisions as LW ground?)  In my opinion, or put MP35 in french supply they had them to which they acquired from Spain, better than shooting the MAS which you fire a full clip at 1-2 meters and miss lol, still learning to shoot that weapon lol.

Your sugestion of cutting them in Heer sounds a reasonable suggestion as per the game. Being as they have good supply of both MG34 and FG42 i believe not real sure but easy for me to look.

Well, the MAS needs both some Hatch time and some art time
I use it a lot, cause i like playing french T0, and i swear i always hear Yoda in the background telling me to "See with your mind"

 and yes the french did confiscate a number of SMGs off the spanish
but if i recall correctly, they were not able to employ very many because they did not have the magazines.
Ammo was no problem, but lack of something to put the ammo in was.

It would be neat from an aesthetic point of view, even though the quantity would probably be silly small
But aside from a visual aspect, it does not gain any killing power really.
I mean, it does in a per bullet sense, more caliber so more KE, but the MAS can hit the other guy a lot more times quicker
Provided of course that Yoda smiles upon you
Getting time to look at the MAS so you dont need Yoda on your shoulder would probably be more bang for the buck.
To me anyways.
"no need eyes, see with your mind, let the force guide you"
Well thank you Mr Yoda, that helps immensely :(

By the way, if you are trying to learn to use it
Go offline, fire it a lot and study the bullet patterns, and literally do your best to ignore the art/animation entirely
and try to visualize the bullet patterns and maintain an awareness of view center, and maintain your sanity at the same time.

Then try doing it repeatedly

Without beer :)



We can't at least currently, separate parts of the LW, which we know the LW did in fact do so in real life
In a way they are kind of confusing a bit, paratroop forces that become ground troops, AA guns that become anti tank weapons and move with the ground forces etc.
With the mechanics in place, they only way i can see to try and reflect that would be giving the 88s to the army as we already do
(as we have no AA version yet, and the LW can do absolutely 0 with them at a typical AF)
And giving the Heer a very small group of the FJ units, but keeping the lions share in the FJ, inside the LW
and you will just have to air drop them if you want lots of them (lots in a relative sense).
At least, unlike real life, you are still allowed to air drop them.
Or technically you can land them and truck them etc.

Perhaps at some point in the future, it could be done better with some kind of system where you can like assemble a unit/garrison/insert name here
semi custom like where you could say ok pull out this Heer block, add in this FJ block
But for now we have to work it out the best within the mechanics we have and can manipulate.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, choad said:

I did watch a video on YouTube where someone did successfully fire it from the hip solo w/o getting planted on their rear. Took all 260 lb's of him though. I also saw a video of a Sasquatch one time, it was pretty cool - a little grainy though.

 If they modeled a 260 lb Axis soldier - than I'm all in for the hip fire. Not sure how fleet afoot he would be though.

The M60 machine gun is 23 pounds and change.  The MG 34 was 26 pounds and change.  At 18 years old and 160 pounds soaking wet I managed to fire an M60 just fine from the shoulder.  I don't think an extra 3 pounds would have made a difference.  In fact it probably would have helped me manage the recoil better.  That's why they are called LMGs or light machine guns as opposed to HMGs or heavy machine guns like the .50 Cal.  They can effectively be handled by one person to include shoulder and hip firing even if it is not the preferred method.  This idea that it's somehow impossible to handle of weapon of that nature is ludicrous.

Where WWIIOL gets it wrong is in the same place it gets it wrong with every weapon.  Running or jogging and engaging with a weapon is a very difficult task... with any weapon.  People who do so tend to miss a lot even at close range.  Top it off with the unrealistic reload times the game has and it's almost comical.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, choad said:

 If they modeled a 260 lb Axis soldier - than I'm all in for the hip fire. Not sure how fleet afoot he would be though.

Probably about 170 / 180 pounds?
Our trooper is about 6 feet tall, and they are all rather lean.

But you dont have to be 260, though more body always helps counteract inertia :)
You do on the other hand, have to adopt proper stance, and dont over fire what you can compensate for
Mr 260 pound guy might be able to maintain control and rip off a 100 round belt, Mr 150 pound guy might have to do it
in several bursts recovering his position in between.
Assuming that both are trying to maintain some semblance of shot placement.

IRL, it is not a highly used tactic, it's wasteful on ammo, and it is risky.
Mostly used as suppressive cover when having to hastily pull your guys back out of an area, but could
be employed to try and support / keep up with a very fast moving advance in desperation.

Problem is, you are standing still when you are doing it, and everyone else is moving.
You can guess whose head is now easier to shoot off.
@Bmbm would probably slay his company for doing it outside of dire emergency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they always have a good hand with running/shooting but go all in on the hip-fire...

 

they could argue for shoulder fire for interesting gameplay but it's nerf this nerf that.

Share this post


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

The M60 machine gun is 23 pounds and change.  The MG 34 was 26 pounds and change.  At 18 years old and 160 pounds soaking wet I managed to fire an M60 just fine from the shoulder.  I don't think an extra 3 pounds would have made a difference.  In fact it probably would have helped me manage the recoil better.  That's why they are called LMGs or light machine guns as opposed to HMGs or heavy machine guns like the .50 Cal.  They can effectively be handled by one person to include shoulder and hip firing even if it is not the preferred method.  This idea that it's somehow impossible to handle of weapon of that nature is ludicrous.

Where WWIIOL gets it wrong is in the same place it gets it wrong with every weapon.  Running or jogging and engaging with a weapon is a very difficult task... with any weapon.  People who do so tend to miss a lot even at close range.  Top it off with the unrealistic reload times the game has and it's almost comical.  

Would you believe there were maybe improvements in recoil and gun mechanics over the 25 years of seperation? Just maybe? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, major0noob said:

they always have a good hand with running/shooting but go all in on the hip-fire...

 

they could argue for shoulder fire for interesting gameplay but it's nerf this nerf that.

No problem with technical hip fire like you. Moving and shooting with accuracy is questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, choad said:

Would you believe there were maybe improvements in recoil and gun mechanics over the 25 years of seperation? Just maybe? 

The M60 was designed in the early 1950s and fielded in the mid to late 1950s. Its design was a knock off of two earlier guns. The MG 42 and FG 42. Those weapons were the advancement. Some would argue the MG 34 was arguably the better weapon though with its precision milled parts. Just maybe the Germans were well ahead their time given that MGs to this day still follow closely to their designs. Just maybe?

Share this post


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

The M60 was designed in the early 1950s and fielded in the mid to late 1950s. Its design was a knock off of two earlier guns. The MG 42 and FG 42. Those weapons were the advancement. Some would argue the MG 34 was arguably the better weapon though with its precision milled parts. Just maybe the Germans were well ahead their time given that MGs to this day still follow closely to their designs. Just maybe?

Just maybe. Perhaps it was one of the rare instances were there was no "advancement" in technology. I guess if it suits you. Begs the question, why would've the design made it off the factory floor if it had zero benefit to a carbon copy of something 25 years earlier. I guess they didn't want to pay the [censored]'s royalties ............ oh wait.

1934 to 1957.

I know you can say early 50's on the M60, but you can also fairly say 1930, late 1920's on the MG34 if that you are going for the date it was conceived in design.

Wish they would've cast aside their suborn arrogance and just adopted a tried and true weapon design rather than try to improve perfection. Just maybe someone got fired over that .....

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

No problem with technical hip fire like you. Moving and shooting with accuracy is questionable.

it's anything but accurate, it has a screen sized cone of fire.

that along with it's rate of fire and ammunition capacity make it a grenade in cqb, not a shotgun, not even a sawn-off double barrel has the spread of the hip-fire guns in game

 

i brought it up in the small arms audit thread, every auto needs a smaller cone of fire while fired from the hip.

all LMG's could benefit from ADS (the mg34 the least cause of its RoF), but ADS has taken a side line after the "nO hIP FiRE!11!1!" BS

 

it's a shame, LMG ADS was talked about and planned...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, choad said:

Just maybe. Perhaps it was one of the rare instances were there was no "advancement" in technology. I guess if it suits you. Begs the question, why would've the design made it off the factory floor if it had zero benefit to a carbon copy of something 25 years earlier. I guess they didn't want to pay the [censored]'s royalties ............ oh wait.

1934 to 1957.

I know you can say early 50's on the M60, but you can also fairly say 1930, late 1920's on the MG34 if that you are going for the date it was conceived in design.

Wish they would've cast aside their suborn arrogance and just adopted a tried and true weapon design rather than try to improve perfection. Just maybe someone got fired over that .....

the modern MG3 is a MG42 (which was basically a MG34) is still in service today. there's no question the German LMG's were excellent weapons, arguably an equal or better than the M60 in many ways

it's totally a 30's weapon, but it's still a excellent weapon even by modern standards.

 

the US military had a unofficial "US-only weapons plan". it's famous for rejecting the .280 FN FAL in favor of the M14, as well as other weapons. IMO, there really wasn't much advancement in service gun tech between the war and 90's, other than the assault rifles. most of the advancement has been focused on cost, weight, and reliability. even the amazing russian AK-107 has not been selected for service. so even today WW2 and inter war small arms are still relevant.

 

you can find modern MG3 information that applies just as well to the MG34/42 in support of hip-fire and shoulder firing (ADS). it's not difficult, and you'll see there's hip-fire as well as shoulder fire techniques.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt there are many who would be able to hold onto a rifle, firing and cycling the bolt action as they run around a room/in town, without either damaging fingers/hands/elbows, or turning around to pick the weapon up off the ground after it has flown out of their hands - however this is a game, and we have unrealistic quantities of weapons and unrealistic performance to some extent of men, machines, and weapons - and NO FEAR OF DEATH (who would run onto the roof of a 3 storey depot and jump to the ground and run to a building filled with enemy infantry, other than in a game?). This is a game - we should get on with it, and enjoy what we have to play  with, and not worry about how some players choose to use the equipment they are able to spawn. 

We need to stop using "historical accuracy" as a weapon to punish and restrict the other team, its a game, and fun is the object here. Obviously we want things to be somewhat realistic, but by and large fun needs to be the goal. Yes we all hate dying, and if it is to a lucky so and so hip shooting it is even more annoying, but when I started playing I was told this was a game with a tough learning curve, and I would die a lot while learning, and once I knew all the ins and outs, I would still die a lot! 

 

S! Ian 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah you are probably right @ian77. I for one fall into the trap quite frequently whenever historical accuracy is brought up. I should probably give up the ghost by now.

It is clear that there is a strong desire to make things historically accurate in many areas like brig composition, equipment available to infantry, ammo loadouts for armor, rate of fire, dispersion, damage model, yada ..... yadda .... yadda. It is just confusing at times is all.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 9:38 PM, XOOM said:

That's exactly correct. I can't help Mosizlak for having a moment, and I will not respond to it. We have bigger things to consider and being irrational reduces any influence on producing a positive outcome.

Call it whatever you want, but having less autos in the spawn list is ridiculous.  

Consider your player numbers when they have to use a bolt action rifle in close combat when the target looks like he's running through a disco strobe light. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2018 at 7:00 PM, goreblimey said:

I hope this adherence to historisity carries thru when the US come in , only fielding the Garand as their base rifle , while the axis are limited in their use of semi autos ?????

 

good to see total numbers were messed up again

HA!  Fat chance.  

 

One look at the Tiger numbers is all you need to know about how CRS will view this kind of approach lol.  

 

I don't mind cutting out the grease gun until its proper introductory date, but when they can't match up infantry supply numbers for yet ANOTHER campaign I begin to lose a lot of faith in their ability to look at a spreadsheet...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, from what i have read, the smg disparity is intentional. Based on historical brig composition .... new territory we are entering with respect to how they fill out a brig's infantry i guess. 

Share this post


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

Call it whatever you want, but having less autos in the spawn list is ridiculous.  

Consider your player numbers when they have to use a bolt action rifle in close combat when the target looks like he's running through a disco strobe light. 

I think the point Moe is trying to make is that automatics befit the current style of nodal gameplay.  

 

If you want to change up the brigades to be more historically accurate you need to consider how that will affect gameplay in regards to other gameplay mechanics.  

 

The fact of the matter is that as long as we have the capture system that we do, automatics will always be the way to get things done in an enjoyable manner. 

Edited by Capco
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, choad said:

I think, from what i have read, the smg disparity is intentional. Based on historical brig composition .... new territory we are entering with respect to how they fill out a brig's infantry i guess. 

So they want to give the Axis more historical advantages that they had early on, but once it gets to later stages of the war where the Axis are being massively outproduced THEN we gotta pump the breaks a little bit and think about gameplay balance?  I mean, we can't let the Axis fight the Americans without all those extra Tigers or the disproportionate amount of semi autos they get!

 

What a joke.  

Edited by Capco
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure, i.e. I'm not 'in the know' or anything, but from my observations it seems like CRS is moving towards an increasing level of historical accuracy within the bounds of their resources.  I used to rail about the opels w/ 1 INF taking towns 3 towns  behind the lines and being rewarded with an instaspawned army, so I get a lot of the concerns.  I just am getting a different vibe from CRS these days, i.e. that they are moving away from artificial play-balancing things as quickly as their resources allow.

 

We can probably expect some lag in one area, and things moving too quickly in others, but overall I truly believe we're seeing a move towards historical accuracy, which we should all welcome.

 

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I'm not sure, i.e. I'm not 'in the know' or anything, but from my observations it seems like CRS is moving towards an increasing level of historical accuracy within the bounds of their resources.  I used to rail about the opels w/ 1 INF taking towns 3 towns  behind the lines and being rewarded with an instaspawned army, so I get a lot of the concerns.  I just am getting a different vibe from CRS these days, i.e. that they are moving away from artificial play-balancing things as quickly as their resources allow.

 

We can probably expect some lag in one area, and things moving too quickly in others, but overall I truly believe we're seeing a move towards historical accuracy, which we should all welcome.

 

S!

I agree. Hopefully, that will include more accurate Sherman to Tiger numbers as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, major0noob said:

with the proposed nerf, the LMG's will be exempt from the current gameplay tactics.

 

soo many nerfs...

I disagree with the terminology usage.  'Nerfing' in this game is taking something that is performing historically accurate (but too well) and downgrading its performance.  Fixing something that is performing ahistorically is NOT nerfing----it is rectifying a problem or modeling error.

 

We all know rambo LMGs should not be the preferred method of clearing a room, as it should not work.  It is not a side-specific issue, either.  I'm sure Allied MGs are clearing rooms as well---not as effectively as the mg34, but the mg34 is simply a better weapon, which I do not begrudge the germans for having an advantage in, at all. 

But, it shouldn't be effective being hip-fired while running into a room swinging it  to and fro------we all know that.  Fixing that, is not 'nerfing' the weapons.  How they fix it remains to be seen.  I am in favor of increasing fatigue, and making the weapon's rounds climb on longer bursts than the 5-7 they should be using without a bipod if they wish to hit anything.

 

I also disagree that LMGs would cease to be useful in the current gameplay tactics.  Used in the defense, LMGs should be, and are quite effective.  In offensive maneuvers, the LMGs can also be effective, provided the SMGs and Riflemen they are running with don't just run off solo style, as that will make the lmg less effective.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   2 members