People take springfields over the Garand or Pedersen for the same reasons.
Not as good /= shit. They work, they dont objectively suck, they just don’t look as good in comparison. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with 1930s japan, because they are the ones who never developed a rifle on par with the garand.
With most plane damage models, tbh, but I don’t think the AI bombers have crew actually modelled, so you have to physically stop them from flying to kill one. Meanwhile, those unmanned-but-somehow-firing defensive guns don’t miss if you steady off to take some well aimed shots.
Nope, that’s the M1 Carbine, and by a lot. The armaguerra (and the 1891 Carcano) suffer from the poor treatment of 6.5mm Carcano in the game.
And all three of those rifles should be basically equal, and none of the 6.5mm rifle cartridges should be doing practically less damage than the .30s
I forgot the M1 carbine, I have to give you that one, I keep thinking of it as an SMG because the damage is that low lol. dunno why it exists
Technically the damage benchmark is 13.5, but single shot weapons need least 12 base (14.4 upgraded) to shine, otherwise the extra shots to down/kill are awful in my experience.
If we’re being completely honest, there’s no good reason for semi-auto or auto rifles to be doing 10 less damage than bolt guns in the same caliber. Velocity reduction, sure, but it’s not so much that it makes the gun half as lethal
Nah that was a weird update. I could see it making sense for gameplay reasons to give the semis steeper falloff or slower projectile velocity, but the hard damage handicap is janky and affects their performance at all ranges. I’d like them to down enemies up to 100ish meters, preferably a bit further.
well when one side has overwhelming advantage with same type of weaponry, then side with weaker weapon is shit. objectively musket is great weapon, but compared with springfield it is shit. and springfield compared to ak-47 is shit.
in what circumstances?
First, I think I’ve fairly firmly established that neither side in the pacific has an overwhelming advantage in firepower, but each has its strengths and weaknesses.
Second, what’s the situation? Are you far from your target? Then yes, the springfield has an advantage IMO because of the shit sights on the type 38. Are you close? Arisaka wins if you don’t suck, because it fires 15% faster. Ak? Same deal. Are you within 300m? Then the AK wins, probably, if the springfield guy isn’t being sneaky. 500m+? Springfield is flatter shooting, more accurate, harder hitting.
Not as good as the competition /= bad, full fucking stop. If that were the case, why the fuck would Russia keep making and using shit-tier upgrades of the AK-74 when they could instead adopt an AR-15, which outside of specific, close range circumtances, is now a more modern, objectively better rifle.
and exactly point is that they are not good as competition that makes them shit. if you compare fiat 400 and audi a8, they are objectively good at their job. which is transporting person from point A to point B. just that when compared to one another one is great and the other one is shit. now you can argue that a8 is 50 or 100 times more expensive, but when put side to side fiat 400 is just shit.
you are arguing that springfield has its advantages, but take 2 armies, one armed with springfields and one armed with ak-s. who will win? and why? simply cause one side had shit weapons.
This is not how this works. Ask a fish to climb a tree and it will spend its life believing it is stupid.
How well is each side trained? How competent is their leadership? Where are they fighting, over what kind of terrain? How’s each army’s logistics and supply situation? How well are the weapons maintained? What kind of support does each side have from armor? Which side, if either, has air superiority? Which side has better medical infrastructure, and which side and more easily replace its losses?
It’s not nearly as simple as which side has a better gun. I’d rather have 40 well-trained, well-fed, well-supplied and well-supported soldiers with well maintained M1903 springfields than 200 shit-tier, underfed, untrained, unsupported conscripts with rusted to fuck AKMs.
No, the Ak is used all over the world because A) it’s cheap to produce, b) it has already been so overproduced that if you were arming men, you might just buy some instead of making them and c) the vast majority of them are in the hands of untrained conscripts in the middle east and africa. The springfield is obsolete tech, sure, but if those are the choices, I presented you with all the variables.
If I had to make a bet, based on your responses, I might, fucking somehow (ask how), know a little bit more about warfare than you do.
you are trying to justify that springfield is not shit weapon compared to AK with all those reasons, when more or less modern war doctrine is more bullets fired at enemy wins wars. then you try to justify springfield when most engagements are in under 200m where AK is ruler. also most normal soldiers (that are not marksmen) couldnt hit shit with springfield iron sights past 200m, not to mention 500m+. sure as sniper springfield has advantage, but as regular rifle it is shit compared to AK.
Because it’s not. We started out comparing WW2 Japanese and American weapons, and you decided to come up with some ridiculously exaggerated situation where guys with springfields have to fight guys with AKs, and made no other qualifiers. Did you know that in the US Army, every soldier, regardless of specialty, is qualified to shoot 300m with an M4? That every US Marine, regardless of specialty, is trained to hit man-sized targets out to 500 meters with their rifle (mine was the M16A2, it’s the M27 IAR nowadays for the infantry, M16A4 for everyone else.) I’d still take Marines with Springfields and good logistics and leadership over third-world conscripts with shit-tier Kalashnikovs. It’d be a rough fight, but the guns aren’t the only factor that matters. I was in Afghanistan, and dudes with “shit” AKs gave the US and our allies a lot of trouble for almost 20 years, despite our better training, better leadership, better supply, and constant rotation of deployed troops on 6 or 12 month schedules, despite our absolutely unquestioned air superiority, despite badass US artillery sytems like Himars.
Ukraine is beating the fucking pants off of Russia right now, despite using one or two generations out-of-date ex-soviet equipment at first, largely because of corruption in the Russian leadership, poorly trained and supported conscript Russian soldiers, and western logistics support.
Is the AK a better rifle than the Springfield, in average combat conditions? Sure, but that’s not what you’re arguing. You’re arguing that the Springfield is shit because it’s not as good as the AK. Is the Hei as good as the Garand? Maybe not, but it’s a much closer comparison, and the Hei isn’t shit because it doesn’t hit quite as hard and it has to reload three rounds sooner. I’m not holding up the springfield as the best rifle ever made (it’s not, though we can explore what is, that would be fun) or the best bolt action rifle, or the best bolt action rifle of it’s era (surprise, that’s probably the Type 38 Arisaka), I’m just poking your arguments full of holes, and instead of trying to patch them, you keep repeating them as if you can’t believe they didn’t work.
i started hyperbole to compare 2 rifles and to show that one is shit compared to other. you started quibbling about army, training, tactics etc.
when you compare rifles, you compare them in same conditions (so with army that had same training), not with vastly different conditions. in modern war even a musket can kill a man, but that doesnt mean it isnt shit weapon compared to automatic rifle.
in game there is big difference between rifle that has 8 bullets and hits harder vs rifle that has 5 bullets and hits softer. that is why one can be good, while other is shit. specially in short range and CQC when you need to defend against multiple enemies. you are using too much RL logic for comparison of similar guns in game world. in RL you wouldnt charge enemy like zerg with SA, while here you do.
that qualified is subjective. did you use iron sights for 300m? or did you use optical sights for both? would you be confident in hitting target with iron sights on 300m in urban conditions? or even identifying hostile before he starts shooting at you from that distance?
No, I started quibbling about that exactly a “shit” weapon is. The Hei isn’t shit. It’s at a disadvantage versus the Garand, but not a drastic one.
A musket isn’t a shit weapon. They fucking work, I own several. Is it a good choice to take into Donetsk? No, but that doesn’t make it a bad gun.
Sure. In my hands, in the game, the Hei isn’t noticably less effective than the Garand, and has better sights. They compare favorably.
I have qualified and trained marines to shoot 500m with both iron sights and 4x optics, and have engaged targets in urban combat at distances as low as several feet to hundreds of meters with both.
you wouldn’t. Hell, I wouldn’t. Stalin? He’d order that shit in a heartbeat. Mao? He’d order a zerg rush with fucking spoons.
Here’s my point, that I can’t tell if you’ve been missing: The japanese rifles aren’t shit just because they have certain disadvantages against their american counterparts. I have the same number of games in each campaign, and hundreds more rifle kills as the Japanese than I do as the US. There may be player comfort/opinion differences that make one rifle or the other better for you, like sights or recoil, but it doesn’t make the rifle you don’t like automaticly shit.
but this is the whole point. it makes it a bad gun compared to any automatic rifle in modern era. they were not accurate past certain range, they didnt have lethality past certain range, they took half a minute to load. so yeah it is shit when you compare it to modern automatic rifle that is accurate for hundreds if not thousands of meters, has lethality on that range and can fire hundreds of bullets in minute.
Are they? Besides, I said lethal, you said accurate.
At 1000m, 57N231 is only delivering 200ft-lbs of energy(271j), Less than .380ACP and considerably less accurate. That might technically be lethal, but not reliably.
Other than height-over-bore and the comb height of the AK stock, sure.
Absolutely, most obnoxious disappointment of a mechanic since I came back to the game.
Was bad enough in Stalingrad, now in the Pacific almost every battle is a constant back and forth of both teams spamming brainless airstrikes that cover half the map with bombs.
They should be removed, but if they absolutely must stay, make them come from loitering bombers that can be shot down to permanently weaken or outright remove the enemy’s ability to call them.
