Actual state of campaigns

i can agree about that
but axis still has:

  • Better weaponry
  • Better vehicles

planes don’t cap the point, they can only gain points.

I think “bite” in your nickname says something…anyway what’s the point of suggestion in all this water here? Should moderators make a closed swimming pool?

2 Likes

Don’t feed such trolls

I’m going to have to heavily disagree on this one. Axis gets superior equipment earlier on, with the majority of good Ally equipment coming at the end. All of the Axis planes that have cannons absolutely annihilate infantry, while Allies only get mid-grade bombers until the HVAR. In terms of map balance, the Axis side usually has a large advantage, given how many built in MGs exist and the natural fortifications already set up. A couple smart engineer players and it can be nearly impossible to push. (D-Day map for example)

Equipment is fairly balanced (The exception is the Axis getting the MG42 with a 50 round mag, The Allies don’t have anything that can compete with this.). The biggest issue that we are having is that they made Axis capture rate faster, and when attacking receive 250 tickets back, whereas Allies only get 150 back. If these advantages were removed, it would be perfectly fine.

For the most part its the same issue as Tunisia. Japanese capture faster, and get far more tickets per point captured on attack. In addition, the Japanese weapons that were designed more around making use of range and sightlines, got outright buffed so they are more effective at short range. Unfortunately, in buffing them in this way, they far outperform when used how they were intentionally supposed to be used. The later LMGS for example absolutely devastate, when used at mid range rather than point blank like an SMG.
Pacific does suffer from an imbalance in map design though. Some areas are far too exposed, and there is no way to fight the artillery spam. However, there are some areas that Japanese defend that should be relatively easy to hold, IF the team actually has one or two good engineers. Unfortunately, in my experience (on console) most people that play as Japanese only do so to have access to the sword and some of the smgs. The sword enables a player to both move much faster than what Allies can, as well as easily dispatch a whole trench or room of infantry. Not enough people make use of the engineers as Japanese, which is one of the big reasons that so many people were having trouble with them early on.

I only play those 3 campaigns, so I can’t weigh in on the others.

Sturmpistole is worse, Breda is worse, Lee Enfield best BA. Otherwise SMGs of Germany are better and the G43 is slightly more accurate and has more bullets.

Its one. Meanwhile the M8 rockets can actually kill tanks.

Only one and the A-20 also has .50 cals for the pilot.

On two maps and in return the Amis have the Jumbo.

M1919. Asides, BAR is more accurate than MG42.

Fair point.

30mms and the 21cm can as well while being much more effective at anti infantry

mas-36 is better because of it’s insane stabbing rate

1 Like

The 30mm shoots HE iirc and most of the time you need to get (most) tanks from behind. Compared to this effort you need with the Bf, the M8 is better/ actually effective. I can also kills Pumas with the .50 but its overall worthless to mention.
The Wulfrockets are less accurate than M8, granted that this is mostly explained by the Bf though.

But is it bad tough? This is how I prefer asymmetrical balance. The Bf can kill entire squads and the P-38 can annoy Panther boys to write nasty comments.

Lee is faster iirc and has more bullets. Stabbing is nice and all that but thats not the primary task of an rifle.

30mm can do it from the front or at a steep roof angle like in berlin (which can defeat the is-2 btw) as of the most recent major update with the 30mms being a death sentence for any plane they hit as a bonus… yeah 30mms are greatest weapon

that’s fair and tankers deserve all the hate in the world tbh and normandy is pretty much the reason why i just stopped playing around with tanks because it just got unfun for me

you can make true use of the lee’s firerate in cqc so you can make your bullets count but stabbing is a good alternate and with the melee perk the stab rate of the mas can exceed the firerate of the lee, as well as not being a british weapon

1 Like

All of this would be much less of an issue, if campaign experience was earned regardless of faction:

Not to mention that our bug reporting and verdicts would be more accurate in assessing the capabilities of both factions - as one could easily play both.

The Allies do not have the M1919 in Tunisia with the exception of the Engineer 2’s MG Nest. Meanwhile, Axis has the MG42 as a mobile weapon. BAR being more accurate? Not by much. Even when mounted and prone its kicks like a mule and is hard to do much with, plus its 20 round mag is gone in 2-3 trigger pulls. Its only relatively good at close range, mid-range is rough, and long range is non-existent. Meanwhile, the MG42 excels at short range, has a 50 round mag and can go through a number of enemies before needing a reload. It is about equal with the BAR at mid range though too.

Axis don’t get MG42 in Tunisia.

1 Like

The whole point of an MG is not to be effective in short range. This is the range for a gun class called SMG. In that way, use assaulters.
And what @JAREDUP said

2 Likes

Devs:
image

This is some masterful trolling, it takes a real knowledge of the game to be so perfectly wrong on so many points. It really gets people going

I may be wrong on the exact name of the MG on Tunisia, its hard to keep the Axis weapons straight for me. The MG that they have that has a 50 round mag is named what?

Its the MG34.

1 Like

Thank you. I haven’t gotten that far with Axis yet, but fight it a lot as an Ally. It definitely performs far better than the BAR.

It’s hard for me to understand this as german naming system of small arms is quite good and organised.

3 Likes

Fair, but I don’t use the Axis as much as I do Ally, so its not as familiar to me.

1 Like