caydel

American Flags need more Springfields

67 posts in this topic

At the present moment ........ "historical" spawnlists have had these effects

everyone is unhappy........ except maybe a few Historical forum thumpers that pretty much never play the game anyway

The axis is almost exclusively spawning inf

The allies are almost exclusively spawning tanks 
 

These FACTS are creating a dangerous level of unbalanced "gameplay mechanics" that have, and will increasingly continue, to create an experience that is less fun......... and that is absolute FUN, not arbitrary FUN.  If you are a tank and have no other tanks to shoot at.... what are your options???? spawn infantry or quit playing????? If you are infantry and only have tanks to shoot at..... what are your options???? Well blow up the tanks, but what happens when you run out of shreks and zooks, and you have no tanks to spawn????  hmmm well, I guess you could spawn a Stuka and get chased by 5 spits...... or maybe you just quit????

 

Edited by kgarner
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or spawn inf and cap the nuts of the tank spawning side.

You see, winning the campaign is FUN, some people say.

Share this post


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

M2 wouldn't arrive until cycle 8 (early T5)
M1 has 15 round capacity, Garand has 8, so that is almost double capacity, not just 2 rounds.

M1 also has more knockdown power than the thompson, and is better at range up to about 200m.
M1 has a lot less kick than the M1 Garand, and is a smaller and lighter weapon, should work well
in medium and close range combat
 

Eh, that’s not what I’ve read. The .30 carbine has ballistic performance roughly on par with a .45 ACP.

 

Combat reports attest to the Thompson performing well at even 100m, while anything beyond 50m for the carbine was a miracle.

 

The M1 was meant to give support soldiers (engineers, artillery/atg gunners, etc.) something a little better that a M1911 during those “oh [censored]” moments. It was never intended as standard battle rifle. 

 

A suped up, long barreled pistol is not something I’m particularly looking forward to unless it replaces the pistol for units like the sapper, or the engineer’s Springfield. It is certainly nothing close to the Stg.44 either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they add them with the small arms audit: when a .22lr equivalent will stop behaving like .50AE, i can see it being useful (no/low recoil). <<<MAS38

 

in the meantime, rats history suggests it'll be akin to the first pass grease gun and MP34.

 

7 hours ago, kgarner said:

everyone is unhappy

this happens too much... they've gone from being compliant towards a faction/group's unhappiness, to ignorant of criticism (constructive or otherwise).

their responses in the rax thread highlight it perfectly. unless someone's constructive in the form of their narrative (in that case: $$$ supply is the only thing that matters), everything else is irrelevant.

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


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

Eh, that’s not what I’ve read. The .30 carbine has ballistic performance roughly on par with a .45 ACP.

It is considerably less weight, which is important when figuring how much ammo can you carry
and it has a much longer effective range.
One of the army's specifications for the design was no more than 18 inches of drop at 300m
the thompson cant touch that, it drops like 45 inches at 300m
Though you would be better off waiting until 200m, that is kind of the sweet spot.

.30cal , 110gr FMJ, Winchester  2200fps 967 ft/lbf
.45ACP , 230gr FMJ, Winchester    950 fps 356 ft/lbf  (fps as fired from an M1 thompson, 835 fps fired from M1911)

For comparison
.357MAG, 125gr    , JHP Federal    1450fps 583 ft/lbf 

I am not sure where you got these reports about 50m being a miracle, but they are based on something besides facts.
It can not compare to the 30-06, but then it was not a rifle cartridge, it was not meant to.
It can do more damage to you at 100m or 200m than a thompson ever could.

 

 

4 hours ago, major0noob said:

if they add them with the small arms audit: when a .22lr equivalent will stop behaving like .50AE, i can see it being useful (no/low recoil). <<<MAS38

Well technically (and you already know this, so i am not sure why you dont say it honestly as to what is wrong with it?) the MAS38 does not have terrible recoil.
Maybe probably more than it should as it is a very small 6mm cartridge, with a unique offset bolt design, but that is not what is wrong with the mas38.
That is not why people find that they cant use it very well at all
Ballistics wise you can hit someone, a lot.

Problem is ballistics are invisible, and what you see is an animation
And the animation is wrong, completely wrong.
It needs totally redone, the animation bears no correlation to what the gun is actually doing.
And unless you have a jedi training helmet and some mastery of the force, it's kind of hard to ignore what you see

Tape 2 strings, corner to corner on your monitor, so you got an X dead center
Now,  ignoring the model and animation entirely (best you can) go prone fire the MAS38 at the 50m target at the training ground using your string crosshairs. 
Just let it fly, full auto.
Now go check the target.

Yep thats right, you actually hit the hell out of it, even though the gun animation was over on some other planet and probably heading towards the sky
and the back of your shoulder blades.

Animations especially animations synchronized to a ballistics firing model is something far outside my skillset, otherwise i'd have probably gave fixing it 
a shot myself out of shear desperation.
 

4 hours ago, major0noob said:

in the meantime, rats history suggests

Whose history exactly?
Did anyone one presently here make those, or have any part in it what so ever?
Please, point out which one of us it was and i will happily go club them

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Merlin51

 

"While carbine bullets would easily penetrate the front and back of steel helmets, as well as the body armor used by Japanese forces of the era, reports of the carbine's failure to stop enemy soldiers, sometimes after multiple hits, appeared in individual after-action reports, postwar evaluations, and service histories of both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps."

 

"A detailed study of the effectiveness of the M2 in the war was assembled by S. L. A. Marshall. He found that many troops complained on the lack of effective range of the gun, which allowed the enemy to get close enough to throw hand grenades.... Marshall noted that almost all killing shots with carbines in Korea were at ranges of 50 yards or less."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine

 

"The M1 and M2 carbines continued in service during the Korean War. A postwar U.S. Army evaluation reported that '[t]here are practically no data bearing on the accuracy of the carbine at ranges in excess of 50 yards. The record contains a few examples of carbine-aimed fire felling an enemy soldier at this distance or perhaps a little more. But they are so few in number that no general conclusion can be drawn from them. Where carbine fire had proven killing effect, approximately 95 percent of the time the target was dropped at less than 50 yards.'"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30_Carbine

 

I don't recall ever reading about someone taking multiple .45 ACP rounds only to get up and walk away.

Edited by Capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the point of the videos? None of those guys was using it properly! 

Everyone in our game knows that they should have been running around shooting as they go, not standing in a braced position firing controlled bursts - duh what noobs, they will be easy kills if they ever stand still like that in WWIIOL!

 Spray and pray Rambo LMG/SMG FTW! :D 

 

S! Ian

Share this post


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

I don't recall ever reading about someone taking multiple .45 ACP rounds only to get up and walk away.

I just posted you the hard data.
Anyone can get up from anything and walk away, people have taken multiple 30-06 hits, and still kept coming, with out falling.
And that trumps a 45 APC any day.

Anyone can edit wikipedia and cherry pick opinions.
I'd recommend reading the US army documentation and testing on it.
They did after all build 6+ million of the things based on the findings.

"The oft-mentioned ability of the Tommy gun to hit and kill at ranges up to five hundred yards is pure theoretical hokum. Practically speaking, the gun will always be an ultra short range weapon, good in the jungle and in street fighting, but poor where the least measure of accuracy is called for. Another most serious limitation is poor penetration. Bullets that bounce off a hard wood surface at 50 yards are not good brush-rakers. Firing a Tommy into the jungle blindly is not effective because so many of the bullets would be stopped by vines and branches. The greater power of military rifle cartridges, fired from full-automatic rifles and machine guns would be preferable for such work. The standard Japanese bullet-proof vest, which would not even slow down a carbine bullet, stopped .45 slugs cold, whether fired from pistols or Tommy guns.

...The advent of the carbine later on in the war eliminated, in my opinion, the last need for a Tommy gun. The carbine made a much more accurate offensive weapon, and a much quicker pointing and more accurate defensive weapon. The lighter weight and greater penetrating power of the .30 caliber carbine catridge increased this superiority even more."

- LT John George, Merril's Mauraders
Shots fired in anger
Pages 395 - 396 

And you could probably read nearly anything from Audie Murphy.


 

Share this post


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

"The oft-mentioned ability of the Tommy gun to hit and kill at ranges up to five hundred yards is pure theoretical hokum. Practically speaking, the gun will always be an ultra short range weapon, good in the jungle and in street fighting, but poor where the least measure of accuracy is called for. Another most serious limitation is poor penetration. Bullets that bounce off a hard wood surface at 50 yards are not good brush-rakers. Firing a Tommy into the jungle blindly is not effective because so many of the bullets would be stopped by vines and branches. The greater power of military rifle cartridges, fired from full-automatic rifles and machine guns would be preferable for such work. The standard Japanese bullet-proof vest, which would not even slow down a carbine bullet, stopped .45 slugs cold, whether fired from pistols or Tommy guns.

...The advent of the carbine later on in the war eliminated, in my opinion, the last need for a Tommy gun. The carbine made a much more accurate offensive weapon, and a much quicker pointing and more accurate defensive weapon. The lighter weight and greater penetrating power of the .30 caliber carbine catridge increased this superiority even more."

Small arms penetration literally means squat in our game (unless I'm trying to kill a 232 I guess).  Nothing in this report says anything about being effective against the enemy beyond 50 meters.  And the Thompsons in our game suffer from none of these issues.  

 

I'm still looking forward to the M1 Carbine, don't get me wrong.  But I'm skeptical that it will be implemented properly.  Being light weight with enhanced penetration capabilities will not remove "the last need for the Tommy gun" in WWIIOL lol.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 0:07 AM, Merlin51 said:

Whose history exactly?
Did anyone one presently here make those, or have any part in it what so ever?
Please, point out which one of us it was and i will happily go club them

stop cutting my quotes.

 

On 3/15/2019 at 6:23 PM, major0noob said:

in the meantime, rats history suggests it'll be akin to the first pass grease gun and MP34.

seriously dude, let go of your fanboy rage. its not helping anyone.

Share this post


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

fanboy rage

With all due respect, it's quite negatively revealing of yourself that you would call a development volunteer a "fanboy".

I'm fairly sure that it undercuts any effectiveness you might have had at convincing CRS that your input is valuable.

Share this post


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

"people have taken multiple 30-06 hits, and still kept coming, with out falling" ...

Yeah... maybe Tony Montana at the end of Scarface lol.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capco, I've done a LOT of study on this topic, but not for WWIIOL- rather for Traveller, a game where you could get wounds ranging from fists and lowtech blades to muskets to modern arms to future rifles like the Aliens Colonial Marines to lasers to the roleplaying game prototype for the BFG9000, the PGMP/FGMPs (think plasma stream like from an antitank HEAT round only fired like a blaster with a close range of 450 meters and an effective range by US Army standards of  900 meters and has infinite 'rounds').

The system I use, Striker, integrates vehicle design, weapons and damage for every era, so you can literally design anything from a WWI truck and biplane and arty piece to future antigrav tanks.  The vehicle build example is a WWII Panther and the system would allow a fight between the Panther and the FGMP inf (broad result, the inf wins most cases).

Core of the system is a penetration/damage definition, with armor reducing or eliminating damage.

I was unhappy with the overall either/or lethality, particularly the 'you hit/you dead' aspect, especially when I and other RPGers peruse police combat stats and battlefield stats so we can model a closer version of what happens into our games.  I was particularly unhappy with the high-end energy weapon results, pretty much you are hit and die, while pistols or knives weren't lethal at all except with multiple hits.

 

The key for resolving this was to break out a hit location result and tie damage to what was hit, and then have another table handle the armor/penetration aspect.

 

So if you are hit in the arms/legs, it could be bad, but a single hit is likely not lethal.  If you are hit in the chest, fair chance of dying particularly if you have untreated post-wound trauma like I do, and hit in the head even with a low velocity fist can lay you out and even pistols/knives can kill, rifles probably will.  Also, the 'quality' of the damage/penetration part matters.

 

The results of that Chicago crime site bears this approach out.  Always look for datapoint result matching in the RW.

https://tinyurl.com/yxl3ghrt

 

Anyway, bottom line, location hits should matter (and seems like they do, most of the time when lag/packet/randomized bullet/tiredness sway isn't interfering), and multiple hits ensure death because it either adds up or hits the head (which is what makes shotguns and artillery and controllable SMGs/assault rifles so lethal).

A lot of people still freak out about the Gauss Rifle's lethality- not so much penetration as a LOT of controllable rifle rounds coming out of that thing, generating multiple rifle hits reliably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the .45ACP is 2x heavier and 50% wider

but the .30 carbine has 150% more joules

 

if joules are all that matter in game, there's nothing to worry about. if stopping power is accounted, it will behave more like a pistol.

it's simple enough to resolve, just remind us of how the inf damage model works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello kgarner how are you?

On 3/16/2019 at 4:19 AM, kgarner said:

...

Do the allies not have a unit equivalent to the fg42..... no, they don't.........

...

Just a little necessary correction here.

The Allied equivalent to the German FG42 is the ubiquitous M1918A2 BAR, yes the current American LMG, in-game NOW with the US. Both weapons are functionally identical, in-game and actuality. So the correct response is:
 

Quote

 

...

Do the allies not have a unit equivalent to the fg42..... Yes they do!

...

 

 

Cheers

James10.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.