XOOM

LMG Solution Planned

347 posts in this topic

30 minutes ago, Psych0 said:

BAR is an automatic rifle. hints the name Browning Automatic Rifle

Just as the fg42 isnt on the list.

The BAR and FG42 carry the same designation as each other in our game which is the Automatic Rifleman. If the insinuation is to go after the BAR, we're not going to do that. The above example describes other Squad mates managing the supply for the BAR, while the FG42 is actually being referred to as an LMG itself. That argument almost makes it look more like the FG42 should be placed into the same pool as the LMG... but we're not going to do that. The FG42 was around 9.3-10lbs depending on the configuration and was easy to reload and highly maneuverable. Knowing you all have seen the movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and the "Band of Brothers" series, among likely many online videos, the M1918A2 BAR represented in-game was pretty maneuverable as well weighing in at only about 16 pounds. Please note: These Hollywood movies are not the basis of our decisions... it was the easiest example I could give to illustrate a point.

The FM24, Bren and MG34 have been WWII Online's Lightmachine Gun's for probably the last 15 years-ish, and they're all receiving the same unbiased treatment. The Allied 30 caliber coming in, will also fall into that category and receive the same automatically.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rote7 said:

As I said, I am not an infantry weapon specialist hence I have to resort to wikipedia and from what I have read they were designed with different goals in mind:

BAR

The BAR was issued as the sole automatic fire support for a twelve-man squad,[46] and all men were trained at the basic level how to operate and fire the weapon in case the designated operators were killed or wounded. At the start of the war, infantry companies designated three-man BAR teams, a gunner, an assistant gunner, and an ammunition bearers who carried additional magazines for the gun. By 1944, some units were using one-man BAR teams, with the other riflemen in the squad detailed to carry additional magazines or bandoliers of .30 ammunition.

So heres the thing with the BAR the United States started use with it in WWI and its primary use was to lay down cover fire fast and move between trenchs with out the need of setting up a mounted MG. The French ChauChat was the same idea. When WWII came around the United States didn't have a LMG so they tried to substitute the BAR as an lmg While LMG trials were underway to adopt a actual LMG  which was the Browning M1919 mg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My response will be in 2-parts, one as a dedicated Axis player, and two, as a supporter of WWIIOL and the game we are trying to have here. For starters, I personally support this change. I would personally like to have firing enabled while walking, but its really not a big deal for me either way. I use the LMG pretty much exclusively with the bipod deployed.

Now, I think there is no denying that players primarily on the Allied side have been pushing for this adjustment and at the same time have the most to gain for it as well. But at the same time, I don't think this is the disaster some are making it out to be as most CPs are capped by rifles and SMGs, and not by LMGs. I can understand that a few players really enjoy using the LMGs in this way and have gotten very proficient at them. But lets me honest here... the way that they were used was flat out gamey and immersion breaking. I honestly think it will do zero to affect the flow of battles, so just as Axis players are overdramatisizing the loss of this, the Allies similarly have made a mountain out a molehill regarding the effectiveness of the LMG turning it into the bogey man that caps all CPs and clears out bunkers stacked with 10+ defenders in one spray. Both are false.

Now to give a further couple coins of opinion. In a general gameplay sense I think the most important is for both sides to just fess up to their feelings and move forward. Just like it is disingenuous for Axis players to threaten subs over an adjustment to one weapon, it is similarly disingenuous and smacks of condescension if Allied players now all of a sudden rush to the "its historical" argument and deny they have gotten the adjustment they have been asking for purely for gameplay reasons. The opposite side will see right through it and it will breed simply another cycle of recrimination (as can be seen in this post and other posts with Axis players now looking at Top Bomber stats, Top Fighter stats, and insert-your-weapon-du-jour to complain about here unit as well).

We should all work to try to be more level headed with everything. Try not to see things with side-blinders on, and when something happens to benefit your side, just man up and admit it that you wanted a fix and it will benefit your side. Honesty may not heal all wounds, but it will at least make a more constructive atmosphere that a lot of the BS and faux ex post facto explanations we see on these forums.

S!

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can agree that these weapons should not be reloadable while moving, that would be very difficult to say the least. However, I know that they could be fired while moving, you just wouldn't be as accurate with them. My father lugged an M60 through the jungles of Vietnam with the Marines, and he could use it in CQB while moving when needed. He started out with a Tommy gun (No way in hell he'd use an M16!). He's 6'2" and weighed about 225lbs back in the day. I remember he used to do sit ups with a 60lb barbel behind his head, and worked out daily with the weights. If you are fit enough, handling one of those in one hand is doable, for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, rote7 said:

BAR:

The BAR was issued as the sole automatic fire support for a twelve-man squad,[46] and all men were trained at the basic level how to operate and fire the weapon in case the designated operators were killed or wounded. At the start of the war, infantry companies designated three-man BAR teams, a gunner, an assistant gunner, and an ammunition bearers who carried additional magazines for the gun. By 1944, some units were using one-man BAR teams, with the other riflemen in the squad detailed to carry additional magazines or bandoliers of .30 ammunition.

FG42

The FG 42 (German: Fallschirmjägergewehr 42, "paratrooper rifle 42") is a selective-fire automatic rifle[1][2] produced in [censored] Germany during World War II. The weapon was developed specifically for the use of the Fallschirmjägerairborne infantry in 1942 and was used in very limited numbers until the end of the war.

It combined the characteristics and firepower of a light machine gun in a lightweight form no larger than the standard-issue Kar 98k bolt-action rifle.

BAR was developed in WWI as a squad automatic rifle, as the concept of LMG was coming into existence.

US Army began WWII not that much evolved from WWI, with squads still using an automatic rifle for squad fire support. Unlike the Germans who wanted to make the infantry squad tactically autonomous to the extent possible, US infantry companies had a support platoon with M1919A4 or other MMGs, that could be attached to infantry squads or platoons for specific purposes.

Quote

Hmmmm, appears one is not like the other so maybe they shouldn't be lumped together.

Absolutely it's true that historically the very modern FG42 was not equivalent to the decades old BAR. The FG42 was developed to provide paratroop units with the lightest possible LMG for fire support of the maneuver assault unit. Based on history and design intent, the FG42 would belong in the LMG group, not the automatic rifle group. CRS however hasn't chosen to do that, because that would mean that the Germans would have two LMGs and no weapon in the automatic rifle group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Axis have used the sappers in a very good way/tactic back in the old days ... with 4 HEAT satchels. So it got downgraded by giving 2 HE and 2 HEAT satchels and creating the Engineer class

Axis have dominated the FB wars back in the old days by showing more skills and patience ... so FB damage was upped by 7.5x

Axis have dominated the battlefield with 88s back in the old days because of patience and coordination ... so more dispersion got introduced

Axis LW pilots dominated the sky back in the old days with 109s ... so somehow the flop sneaked it into a patch and never got fixed

Axis have used LMGs to counter the insane ROF of brit SMGs ... so now you can only fire it anymore while standing still

 

So what is coming next ?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asimov I totally agree with you.   The switch is a good thing that will provide realism and not overtly affect gameplay.    But I think saying that allied players that welcome this switch only do so because they think it is the bogeyman game changer that will lead to victory is false.   I like the change because it is realistic.  I agree with you, I don't think the MG34 was such an axis advantage, so why does that make me two-faced or disingenuous for saying I like this for historical reasons?  I have never complained about it (look I have played for ever and only have a few posts on the new forums), like I said earlier, I don't care who wins.  I just like to play the game and I want it to be as realistic as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, XOOM said:

 If the insinuation is to go after the BAR, we're not going to do that.

Xoom, I am not insinuating anything, I don't use such complicated words unless I have to. :)

6 minutes ago, XOOM said:

 The FG42 was around 9.3-10lbs depending on the configuration and was easy to reload and highly maneuverable.  ...  the M1918A2 BAR represented in-game was pretty maneuverable as well weighing in at only about 16 pounds. 

So the BAR is almost twice as heavy as the FG42 and still considered as maneuverable?

11 minutes ago, XOOM said:

The above example describes other Squad mates managing the supply for the BAR, while the FG42 is actually being referred to as an LMG itself. That argument almost makes it look more like the FG42 should be placed into the same pool as the LMG... but we're not going to do that.

I guess this is the sentence you are referring to:

"It combined the characteristics and firepower of a light machine gun in a lightweight form no larger than the standard-issue Kar 98k bolt-action rifle."

To put a 10lbs weapon in the same class as the much heavier MG34 would be silly, wouldn't it? My original question arose from the designation of the BAR as a "sole automatic fire support weapon" vs. "selective fire automatic rifle" in Kar98 format for the FG42.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, kazee said:

exactly...then fix the nades make them twice as powerful and leave the lmgs alone

Or better yet, design hand grenades, rifle grenades and cannon shells to work per historical realism, and design LMGs to be used per historical realism.

The game's about the fighting...let's have it be as realistic as fun and practicality allow.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BAR was issued to one man and he was expected to use it as an infantry weapon.   While it was impractical, due to its low rate of fire, early in the war the army expected it to fulfill a light machine gun role if needed.  They also expected the soldiers to use it as a rifle.  That is why the poor bastages that were issued it complained about its weight.  So realistically in game it should be able to be used as either, but good luck firing that thing in real life unless it is supported.

Edited by jj506
mispelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, undercova said:

Axis have used LMGs to counter the insane ROF of brit SMGs ... so now you can only fire it anymore while standing still

 

So what is coming next ?

Case in point of what I was saying. Had one side handled the situation with slightly more tact, it would have made it less likely that the opposite side would overreact and start looking for blood in other places to get even (and I'm not trying to be side-biased or blame one side, this is just a general comment which has swung BOTH ways many times in the past).

Because whether we as a community like it or not, there are going to be a fair number of Axis players who are going to make it their mission to now "fix" the Thompson SMG and the way it is ahistorically used ingame (along with every other SMG, BTW). The endless cycle of revanchism is tiring, but for whatever reason both sides always fall into the same trap every time there is a new (usually non-)issue du jour.

@jj506my comments weren't directed at you. Apologies if it seemed that way S!

Share this post


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

The BAR and FG42 carry the same designation as each other in our game which is the Automatic Rifleman. If the insinuation is to go after the BAR, we're not going to do that. The above example describes other Squad mates managing the supply for the BAR, while the FG42 is actually being referred to as an LMG itself. That argument almost makes it look more like the FG42 should be placed into the same pool as the LMG... but we're not going to do that. The FG42 was around 9.3-10lbs depending on the configuration and was easy to reload and highly maneuverable. Knowing you all have seen the movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and the "Band of Brothers" series, among likely many online videos, the M1918A2 BAR represented in-game was pretty maneuverable as well weighing in at only about 16 pounds. Please note: These Hollywood movies are not the basis of our decisions... it was the easiest example I could give to illustrate a point.

The FM24, Bren and MG34 have been WWII Online's Lightmachine Gun's for probably the last 15 years-ish, and they're all receiving the same unbiased treatment. The Allied 30 caliber coming in, will also fall into that category and receive the same automatically.

Um, no.  The M1918A2 weighed in at 19lbs.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rote7 said:

So the BAR is almost twice as heavy as the FG42 and still considered as maneuverable?

Well it's not quite half but it's still 10lbs lighter than the other LMG weaponry. I wouldn't say it's "as maneuverable," but more so than the other LMG's where these changes are being applied to.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, csm308 said:

Um, no.  The M1918A2 weighed in at 19lbs.

True, however the US Army recognized that the BAR was no LMG so the ammo load was moderate. The FG42 OTOH was, for the Fallshirmjaegers, an LMG, so it had the largest possible ammo load...because German doctrine called for laying down a lot of LMG fire.

If the game had progressed to loadouts yet, the FG42 gunner (and assistant) would be carrying as much, possibly more, total weight than a BAR gunner. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, csm308 said:

Um, no.  The M1918A2 weighed in at 19lbs.

VR

Ah crap, you're right! I hate it when you're right :D (I kid). S! 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jwilly said:

True, however the US Army recognized that the BAR was no LMG so the ammo load was moderate. The FG42 OTOH was, for the Fallshirmjaegers, an LMG, so it had the largest possible ammo load...because German doctrine called for laying down a lot of LMG fire.

If the game had progressed to loadouts yet, the FG42 gunner (and assistant) would be carrying as much, possibly more, total weight than a BAR gunner. 

Very true.  Like I said US army doctrine saw the BAR as a rifleman that could be a machine gun.  Fairly early on it was recognized that specialized weapons were better.  US machine gun crews would consist of 30 (or later yet 50) caliber guns and carry heavy load outs themselves, as the war progressed the BAR would get less of a role.

Edited by jj506

Share this post


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

True, however the US Army recognized that the BAR was no LMG so the ammo load was moderate. The FG42 OTOH was, for the Fallshirmjaegers, an LMG, so it had the largest possible ammo load...because German doctrine called for laying down a lot of LMG fire.

If the game had progressed to loadouts yet, the FG42 gunner (and assistant) would be carrying as much, possibly more, total weight than a BAR gunner. 

And just how many FG42s are in game compared to the ubiquitous BAR?  How many FG42s are on the frontline in combat at any one time compared to the BAR?  You're really reaching here Jwilly.  That's okay, we Axis players understand you have to justify this change.  Aismov has it absolutely right though, "it is similarly disingenuous and smacks of condescension if Allied players now all of a sudden rush to the "its historical" argument and deny they have gotten the adjustment they have been asking for purely for gameplay reasons. The opposite side will see right through it."

VR

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, XOOM said:

Well it's not quite half but it's still 10lbs lighter than the other LMG weaponry. I wouldn't say it's "as maneuverable," but more so than the other LMG's where these changes are being applied to.

Is the weight difference BAR vs. FG42 taken into account when calculating stamina loss and inertia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rote7 said:

Is the weight difference BAR vs. FG42 taken into account when calculating stamina loss and inertia?

I would have to review the data to be sure about this, but I am pretty sure that stamina consideration is already accounted for on a per-weapon basis.

I will tell you, as I have in this thread, I do not intend to target weapons and intentionally nerf them. I understand your point and seeking to level the playing field, don't get me wrong. But you're on the path of validating a vengeance and that is not at all how we came to this decision for the entire LMG class.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Well, hope allies happy.

Now have the best tank, ATG, armored car, fighter, bomber and bolt rifle;  rest being equal.

I suppose our Flak 38 is better than allied light AA.... we get one maybe.

best bolt rifle by what category
Fastest cycle time no 4 enfield
Highest stopping power K98
Sights are more a personal pref

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, XOOM said:

I would have to review the data to be sure about this, but I am pretty sure that stamina consideration is already accounted for on a per-weapon basis.

I will tell you, as I have in this thread, I do not intend to target weapons and intentionally nerf them. I understand your point and seeking to level the playing field, don't get me wrong. But you're on the path of validating a vengeance and that is not at all how we came to this decision for the entire LMG class.

So, the BAR goes away when the M1919A6 gets in game, right?

VR

Share this post


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

So what is coming next ?

We know that half-year tiers are coming at some point.

We know that, historically:

1. The British HEAT RG was issued and extensively used from the get-go. Call it T0. Because there was no time fuze, it had to be fired from a moderate distance for the gunner to survive. 

2. The French HEAT RG wasn't issued yet in May 1940 but 150,000 were in Army warehouses with another 150,000 on order, it was planned to be issued in July 1940, some were used near the end of French combat activities, and more were used later in the war. Call it T0.5. It probably had a similar gunner risk. 

3. The German fielded a HEAT RG just in time for Crete in May 1941. That's T1. Historically this first weapon was used only by the Fallshirmjaegers, but it's the one that CRS has modeled for the Heer. (Historically this first weapon was weak and unreliable. The Heer didn't have a HEAT RG until February 1942; that one was reliable but still weak. A design with penetration comparable to the British and French designs was finally developed and fielded in November 1942, and the Fallshirmjaeger-specific design was scrapped.)

4. The Germans had an adhesive-attached HEAT charge, maybe in late 1940 but possibly not until early 1941, with moderate penetration. Call that T0.5 or T1. The HHL3 magnetic-attached HEAT charge that was the basis for the game's current "HEAT sapper charge" was first fielded in late 1942. Call it T2.5.

5. Neither the British, French nor Americans ever had a weapon comparable to the German attachable HEAT devices.

Maybe that's what's next?

 

Edited by jwilly
T1 for the GG/P 40, not T2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, csm308 said:

So, the BAR goes away when the M1919A6 gets in game, right?

VR

Oh wow, you really won't want the (game) US infantry to replace every BAR with an M1919A6. Their squad firepower would double.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.