ok there you go, well done.
i am too lazy to read trough all of it so i will just assume that you are atleast mostly correct (going by details LordBeaverbroke provided). i dont really care either way, i just wanted you to provide something
there are still the garand and SVT numbers but i will leave you be for now
well this looks absolutely way more faster than 20-30 RPM
And also for the Garand either.
those 2 video wasnt even a bumpfire, don’t say bullshit about mechanical issue and thing.
What you mostly said is groundless nonsense.
Operator’s Manual is kinda “recommendation”, not a necessity.
for example, During the Gulf War, Abrams tank also shot a round each in four seconds. but According to the manual, 5-6 seconds were loaded!
manual isnt everything about the gun, they cant put in everything in it. it was mostly made at the office, without any field results or references.
If it is then there’s no point in it, as I myself believe the in-game value should only be based on how fast it is capable of being fired So around 400rpm or so. I don’t believe historical rof should be taken into account as, 1: Aiming shouldn’t be included, you’re meant to aim for yourself and not be limited by a hardlock, 2: recoil should be added as recoil and not decreased rof, and same for technical issues like jams.
G41 and G43 different quite a bit. And if there’s so many, it sohuldn’t be difficult to link a few websites, right?
It is commonly accepted historical fact that both guns are unreliable. If you wish to discredit that, the oneness is on you to provide evidence to the contrary.
I found (on a variety of sites, all of which you can find by searching up “Gewehr 43 reliability”) that the G43 did indeed have problems with 3 things:
Nothing I found would directly affect the rof. (I do not think jams should be included, as again, it makes no sense to be forced to shoot slower due to jamming.) If jams are to be implemented, they should be implemented directly as, well, jams.
If you have any evidence on how technical issues made the gun design universally shoot slower, and which would make sense to include in the rof limit (not as an external mechanic, like jams or reload), then present them.
Powder build up in the gas chamber can cause a decrease in ROF. The buildup restricts the amount of gas that can apply force onto the piston, thus decreasing the force the piston can apply on the bolt. Furthermore, on a short stroke gas system like the G43 has, a reduction in the force applied by the piston reduces the momentum it strikes the bolt at, thus reducing the inertia of the bolt and making the whole rechambering process slower. While enough powder in the gas port can cause jams, jams were removed from the game back in Alpha due to how hated they were. Thus, reducing the ROF is the next best option.
Isn’t there a way to clean this?
And even then, how many rounds do you have to go through to get it to chamber so slowly?
And I believe nonsense like making jams a hidden statistic in the rof would be more hated.
And taking game balance into consideration, a semi nerf is the last thing to consider. A buff is a much better solution. Cause late game SF rifles are laready causing problems, so doing this would only make those worse.
the first video clearly shows the rof is slower for the g43 than the m1 grand
no you proved it in the videos you posted of why im right g41/43 fire slower than m1 grand by alot but was more accurate than m1 grand so there’s the trade off. and it for effective fire rates not as fast as you can shoot
yes but its a good starting point and you cant rule it out either
There is a way to clean it, but the gas block will just foul again, so it will be consistently slower than the cyclic rate. If we are talking balance, sure most of the nerfs should be undone, but we are talking historical accuracy right now, and those values are the historically accurate values.
Yeah, but I don’t think it’ll be that noticable or foul that fast. Certainly not within the 60 rounds you can bring with you.
And at the end of the day, that’s the most important, is it not?
They are, but they’re also a statistic/suggestion. Not a hard limit. And ithink you can understand that it’d make no sense to set a limit with a field statistic. (In case you want explanation: It would artificially lower performance, the most accurate way is to base hard limits off of hard limits. Mostly cause even in the field, that avrage statistic wasn’t it’s consisten firerate, it was just that, an avrage statistic.)
I don’t know how fast the gas block fouls, and you don’t either, so we really can’t say if putting 60 rounds through a G43 would clog up the the gas block enough to slow it down. However, the Germans would have known and factored it into their calculations when coming up with the 20-30 RPM.
That is my personal opinion, but the devs seem to have other ideas, and if the devs want to commit to some degree of historical accuracy, I intend to make them fully commit
Sure, but this game likes to oversimplify certian complex relationships. Take the relationship between tanks and infantry. An infantry squad that has a tank surrounded can do a multitude of things to it, like smash the periscopes and sights, damage tracks and roadwheels and break things in the engine compartment. In the game, we dumbed all that down to a single item that an infantryman can throw. It’s likely, and to some degree preferable that something similar happen with weapons and their maintenance issues, as we already have the values for the ROF with those issues included.
If it did, it would’ve been stressed as a much more important issue and likely the gun wouldn’t have entered production, certainly not in these numbers. Both of those values are far too low. If I had to guess, it’d have to be at least a few hundred rounds before it started to be noticable, meaning below or around 200-ish rpm. And I still find that to be too extreme.
Though unless either of us digs up or measures this value, all we can do is guess and theorize.
And why? To bury this game even faster? Enlisted can never work as a full simulator. At least not without changing 90% of how it works.
I’d sy that’s more of a budget issue. As well as having the game be noob-friendly (something all f2p games have to do to survive).
It is clear we have different views on all of this. I’d even say that yours are completely contradictory to mine. With me focusing on balance and gameplay with a slight degree of historical accuracy, while you focus on inputing raw data in places where it might not fully make sense, just to have a bit more historical accuracy, even if it is fabricated, while barely taking gameplay and balance into account. At least that’s how it seems to me from what you wrote here. So it’s also clear we won’t get anywhere with this.
So how about we stop wasting our time on a fruitless discussion and leave this be?
Thats the point, no military issued firearm was perfect, and shooting super fast increase the chance of malfunctions.
Then again, I am pretty sure that a firearms expert/gun smith should be able to turn even a g43 into a very reliable weapon. (Which was not done by Soldiers in general)
All these things aside, the semi auto nerf was not needed gameplay or balance wise, and I think a middle ground would satisfy everyone. Just a bit of a fire rate buff again, and we are all happy again.
How?
first, a good modern weapon, with a good trigger, a smooth operating bolt, clean gas system - which also is a bit “over gased” to make sure to kick out dirt particles which could cause problems + more gas pressure makes also sure that your bolt/ cycling mechanic loads rounds reliably, and last but probably most important a well feeding magazine… if all these things are “superb” which is still even for modern standards a rare thing to have - then but only then I can say : yes you can “rape” your trigger and the gun will not fail you, as long as you take care of said weapon.
Now If we compare this to world war 2, especially late war germany, we can assume that the G43 was not an expensive weapon with lots of years of testing behind it, in fact production time was rushed with these weapons. Thus when ppl compare the M1 Garand, the SVT 40 and the G43 with each other (which has been done a lot) reliability wise the M1 Garand is often considered the “best”, while the remaining G43 are all fragile “artifacts” that need good care, otherwise they will brake.
I’m not, I’m applying the logical patterns the devs have demonstrated to use when making decisions in regards to historical accuracy to try to come to the conclusion of if the proposal makes sense. Furthermore, we have barely discussed anything to do with balance throughout this conversation, so I don’t know how you can claim to be taking an approach based on “balance and gameplay”. Finally, just because you dislike what the numbers say or are unaware of what is common knowledge, doesn’t mean the information is fabricated.
you have dyslexia? That’s not the point!
i was saying about that your “Manual based arguments” are mostly wrong, and irl they actually could fire at higher, faster rate than a manual
As you said effective firerate is diffrent with maximum firerate, and why you want the Semi-Auto in-game to be set as the effective firerate?
that effective firerate thing is also could be different wether your surroundings are, like in field or urban etc.
same as irl, in-game you also will have bad accuracy when you fastfire the semi-auto rifle. but same as irl, it will be effective much more in closer range battles.
it’s not a ROF fixed Full auto rifle, it’s a Semi auto rifle. users can adapt and use it as their enviorment changes. just like when you snipe you shoot slower, when you clear the site you shoot faster.
well and their excuse that time wasnt the effective or historical ROF, it was a damn Mental problem and brain stress shits of soldiers.
i dont want that. the m1 grand is capped at 200 it fires super slow in game now is the point and you proved why the semi nerf is bad
Oh. I thought that you wanted to Limt Semi-Auto ROFs with the numbers you said.