• Announcements

    • XOOM

      Volunteer PHP Developer wanted to revive the Gazette!   07/24/2019

      We're looking to properly revive the World@War Gazette and need a solid PHP developer to help take some work forward. If you have some skills with PHP and are looking for some experience and to bring important home page news / recognition for individual players back to WWII Online, I'd like to hear from you! Submit an inquiry to jobs@corneredrats.com with some details about your experience. You will need at least 10+ hours per week to contribute to the team. The Gazette's current status can be found here: https://www.wwiionline.com/resources#gazette
XOOM

LMG Solution Planned

347 posts in this topic

12 minutes ago, csm308 said:

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

VR

I foresee (but please don't quote me because we have other guys working on supply numbers) that the need to supplement the BAR's for US Forces will drop, and the .30 cal will take on the full role of US LMG. Hang in there man. Like I said, we got something cooking to help.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

 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.

Now now ... now you are insinuating. If i wanted to be smug I would say that I am simply interested in historical correctness but I won't descend to that. ;o)

Since the whole argument seemed to be centered around the weight of the weapons I was simply curious why the, weight wise admittely somewhat inbetween, BAR is not classified as an LMG even if the official US army doctrine called it an automatic squad support weapon.

Also, as csm said, the BAR is available in much greater numbers than the FG42 (which is historically correct)  but I fear we will have heated discussions in a few weeks about bunker rushing BARs while the MG34 can't do that anymore and there are not enough FG42s to counter that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rote7 said:

Now now ... now you are insinuating. If i wanted to be smug I would say that I am simply interested in historical correctness but I won't descend to that. ;o)

Since the whole argument seemed to be centered around the weight of the weapons I was simply curious why the, weight wise admittely somewhat inbetween, BAR is not classified as an LMG even if the official US army doctrine called it an automatic squad support weapon.

Also, as csm said, the BAR is available in much greater numbers than the FG42 (which is historically correct)  but I fear we will have heated discussions in a few weeks about bunker rushing BARs while the MG34 can't do that anymore and there are not enough FG42s to counter that.

I mean it seemed like a logical progression, but if you're not, then awesome. :) 

So regarding the supply... at this point in time, these LMG fixes are not live. I will ask our guys working on the supply numbers, to factor this into their thoughts and consideration. We are committed to providing a balanced game and that does not come in the form of 1:1 ratio for numbers as there's so many different underlying factors that truly create the term: balance.

That said, I think we can find some wiggle room here to make sure we're being fair about things. I again do not foresee a 1:1 ratio between BAR's and FG42's, but automatics to automatics can likely be done.

@OHM @Bmbm Please consider the above when this goes live.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I hopped on channel with @xcas and he asked me a great question:

Xcas: "What about firing while prone / undeployed?"

I went in and tested it... so I updated my main post to include the following:

"One exception is being stationary, and looking left - right, and up-down. You can shoot and reload and provide stationary 360 degree hip fire cover or suppression, should you choose."

And I am okay with that btw, so no intent to make a change there.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

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

So you want to have both.  I figured as much.  You want both Rambo BAR (with no Axis equivalent) and the M1919A6.  Got it.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be sure here... the M1919A6 will fall into the same category as the LMG's we've already outlined and will not be possible to be rambo'd around. If that was already understood, great, just being painfully certain that the main message is being received by all readers properly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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.

The FG42 was 9.3 lbs and had a select fire switch for single or auto fire.  It was designed to be a rifle with auto fire when needed. It was not an LMG. 

If you even remotely think the FG42 should be treated like an LMG because of it’s weight then obviously the Thompson SMG should too at 10.8 lbs, heavier than an FG42. 

Do make this out as though CRS did some sort of favor with the FG42 by not calling it an LMG. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I welcome this but I also recognise that this change really needs to be accompanied by a fix of a long-standing Axis complaint - that’s the realpolitik of the issue. Whether it’s the Mattie or the Havoc or the Spit damage model etc

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shrug. I'm not even surprised anymore with this kind of stuff.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

The FG42 was 9.3 lbs and had a select fire switch for single or auto fire.  It was designed to be a rifle with auto fire when needed. It was not an LMG. 

If you even remotely think the FG42 should be treated like an LMG because of it’s weight then obviously the Thompson SMG should too at 10.8 lbs, heavier than an FG42. 

Do make this out as though CRS did some sort of favor with the FG42 by not calling it an LMG. 

Of course the FG42 was not intended as a squad LMG "because of its weight". It was intended as a squad LMG because that was the goal of the development program at the Luftwaffe weapons center...to provide the Fallshirmjaegers with a full-auto-capable, rifle-caliber weapon, light enough to be jumped with using a larger chute, to fill the squad LMG role in infantry doctrine i.e. fire support. The impetus for the development program was to avoid further fiascoes like Crete, where the MG34s and Kar98s were all in weapons canisters, most of which fell in open fields covered by British MMG and rifle fire, and the troopers were armed only with pistols and a few SMGs to shoot back.

Share this post


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

the Havoc or the Spit damage model etc

Personally, that's what I'm guessing is up next.  

Share this post


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

Of course the FG42 was not intended as a squad LMG "because of its weight". It was intended as a squad LMG because that was the goal of the development program at the Luftwaffe weapons center...to provide the Fallshirmjaegers with a full-auto-capable, rifle-caliber weapon.

Yet the main argument for "fix the MG34" was the weight of the weapon and not primarily its classification as an LMG.

Now all weapons with a similar weight will get the same treatment with the exclusion of the BAR, which weight wise is leaning more to the heavier side and therefore could easily be in the "fix this as well" weapon group. It is not and won't be, fine with me.

If we want to argue semantics, here is what I have taken from the posts of some players in this thread: In real life the BAR (being twice as heavy as the FG42) is an automatic rifle, therefore it is not an LMG. The FG 42, which stands for FallschirmjägerGewehr (Gewehr => Rifle),  is not exclusively full auto but should be classified as an LMG because of its rate of fire. It is an favor to the Axis playerbase that it was not classified as such in game.

Did I interpret anything wrong?

Edited by rote7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

The FG42 saps stamina so quickly, I avoid it if I have to move far and/or fast. Also, I avoid it if far from resupply because it eats up ammo so quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think I would call the FG42 an LMG
We'd probably call it a battle rifle, once upon a time when those still existed.
Precursor to an assault rifle, which axis would go invent one of those too, too late for them but the idea continued on.

Fairly sure the LW's idea was to create a standardized weapon the FJ could drop with that would cover all their needs, suppressive and aimed rifle like firing
and simplify logistics.

They built it light, designed it to be ergonomically used as a rifle, even making some later changes to it ergonomically that would carry over into assault rifles
for decades.
They even named it Paratrooper Rifle, and they were kind of anal about naming things

LW wanted the full rifle cartridge for the range, the US did the same in the M14

Everything that is agreed on as a dedicated support LMG is ergonomically utter crap for using as an assault rifle, battle rifle, rifle in general, smg etc

Share this post


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

The FG42 saps stamina so quickly, I avoid it if I have to move far and/or fast. Also, I avoid it if far from resupply because it eats up ammo so quickly.

Not sure on stamina off the top of my head. It had a high ROF. My favorite WWII weapon.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone.

@XOOM My only complain about all this LMG thing, and please do not take it as negative criticism, is:

There were several topics were a debate about the LMG was taking place.

True that most of the post were complaining BUT there were really nice data and ideas there too.

Thing is that, and sorry if I'm wrong, the debate about what to do was still going on while a choice had already been made and was developed behind the courtains.

Only yesterday I saw a post from you in one of these topics pointing out that an announcement about this would take place soon TM.

That leaves me with the feeling of a fake debate.

When the decision about how to face the LMG thing was taken, I personally would have appreciated a post either:

A. Guys, a decision is been already taken. We will begin developing it. Expect further info in the next future.

or

B. Guys. After the debate, the initial decision is this "bla, bla, bla, because of bla, bla" what do you think about it and how do you think it could be implemented/ improved?

I leave this here in case you feel you want to take this into account in future debates regarding other aspects or weapons of the game.

S!

Edited by piska250

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Ever hear of walking fire?  Kind of the whole concept of the B.A.R.  Firing should be allowed while walking not jogging.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, piska250 said:

That leaves me with the feeling of a fake debate.

Not the case at all. Its been talked about internally in CRS general slack chat by members from all teams Dev / QA / Marketing / Support ect. With some good arguments for and against changes to LMG's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree with the notion that an LMG gunner can not fire while moving . The LMG can and should be able to be fired while moving in an emergency and has been in real combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Psych0 said:

Not the case at all. Its been talked about internally in CRS general slack chat by members from all teams Dev / QA / Marketing / Support ect. With some good arguments for and against changes to LMG's. 

Hey Psycho, Sure the Team has debated long and hard but I refer to the community's debate in topics like the one  started by Xoom himself in December 2018.

My doubt. Maybe It is my english and not sure about this:

- Is this the final solution or is this a proposal open for debate?

 

 

Edited by piska250

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.  Long over due.  Don't understand why people are upset with it as it is a very gamey thing to utilize the weapon as it is currently being used.  Not sure how people can't see that, it boggles my mind.

Hopefully other fixes with some other equipment across the board come soon as well.  Good job CRS.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, piska250 said:

Hey Psycho, Sure the Team has debated long and hard but I refer to the community's debate in topics like the one I point below started by Xoom himself in December 2018.

What's the point of beginning such a debate when apparently the decision was already made? That's my complain here.

Decision wasn’t until very recently.. Many options have been discussed for the past few months, both internally and with the playerbase. A decision like that typically isn’t locked in until we announce it, and even with that, may get adjustments/refinements as it goes through the development process (incorporating it into the client and going through QA process)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, piska250 said:

Hey Psycho, Sure the Team has debated long and hard but I refer to the community's debate in topics like the one  started by Xoom himself in December 2018.

My doubt. Maybe It is my english and not sure about this:

- Is this the final solution or is this a proposal open for debate?

 

 

Tbf, this debate has been going on for years. There was nothing left to say.

 

Also, the original proposal was started in December, so we’ve had 2+ months to officially debate it.

Share this post


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

I completely disagree with the notion that an LMG gunner can not fire while moving . The LMG can and should be able to be fired while moving in an emergency and has been in real combat.

Do you have any video to back up that claim?

In the 10+ years since the first forum posts debating this issue, the only relevant video I've ever seen posted was an American infantryman walking forward (with some difficulty) while firing a BAR. I've never seen that with an MG-34.

 

 

 

BTW:
It's worth noting how far away this game's playerbase is from the kind of realism advertised for WWIIOL. The devs try to fix Rambo LMGs, relegating the weapon more towards the support role it actually had.......and many veteran players on one side completely freak out  over the ability to run around while hip-firing a freaking MG-34.....(which makes it clear how the weapon is actually mostly used in our game).

This is not a problem in ARMA 3 or Post Scriptum or Squad (where you could never run around while firing such a weapon to begin with). Just shows how much some current players actually care about the "realism" and "mil sim" aspects this game claims to have. As an Axis player who's been here since day one, I actually do care about those aspects of the game, and I always have.

If this game is ever going to hope to seriously live up to what it's advertised as in terms of a "realistic" "mil sim," then I hope the devs have enough motivation and willpower to ignore players who think it's a bad thing that they can no longer run around while hip-firing an LMG.

I hope the devs have a clear enough vision of what this game can *still* be, that they're immune to side-biased whining that insists that the game should remain something like Quake III Arena on a big map.

Edited by xanthus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.