Weapons and vehicles are different to balance when they’re considered mirror unlocks, but completely asymmetrical in nature.
You, for example, in Moscow, unlock G41s and SVT-38 rifles at the same level. But are they equal weapons? No.
Now, there are wild, and undoubtedly varied examples similar to this where the performance of a weapon or vehicle at x campaign level is outright unfair for the counterpart. So why not a different kind of solution? Instead of introducing more “better” weapons as later-campaign level unlocks, we rearrange the unlocks that we currently have according to their level of power.
Instead of both being examples above being unlocked at campaign level 21, you could get the G41 unlocked sooner, while the SVT-38 and ZH-29 are unlocked at the same campaign level because they actually have comparable performance, listed below:
The AVS rifle would be an independent weapon unlock not attached to any particular squad. In fact, what would be desirable is if squad type unlocks: I, II & III variants, are unlocked at the same campaign level as their counterpart faction, but weapon and vehicle unlocks would be designated at a level where the counterpart faction can play at a similar level.
To make this work, anyone who already unlocked a weapon that will be moved up several levels later will keep their copy of the weapon, but will be unable to procure more copies until they reach that campaign level again. For vehicles, they can only keep it if it already had their first battle with it.
Now, the G41 and SVT-38 are only examples. You can think up of any egregious counterparts that need adjustment, but this should be the first step in balancing the game.
How would you do this with german SMGs for example like the MP3008, MP40 etc.? The germans don´t really have any eqivilants outside of captured weapons of their counterpart. And the beretta 1918 I guess but it´s a premium weapon in Moscow.
Double down on germans having more accurate SMGs by buffing them and nerfing the Soviet ones?
That’s the problem when the devs start to take a leaf out of BF V and make stuff up - its hard to balance them if you want to leave their performance metrics as authentic as they can be implemented. However, if authenticity is just for the skins, then they can make any sort of weapon status up they like Rainbow Sige 6 style so that ppl can have the progression gameism checked off.
Furthermore, the failure of logic doubles down, because in Enlisted Gaijin tried to develop a Campaign based approach - so that further limits the range of weapons available to the combatants…
So yeah, I think this is slowly becoming a bit of a lost cause…
But if they change unlocks levels how they can ever fix that ‘buggy’ reload for g41? if that weapon could be loaded one bullet/stripper at time it would be good as svt38
It wouldn’t change the fact that the SVT still handles better. A one-by-one reload is applicable to most rifles at the time, including the SVT itself. The SVT is the semi-automatic rifle caliber weapon with the least recoil across campaigns.
Suppose G41s get fixed, the closest equivalent to the SVT would still be the ZH-29
Recoil difference for svt,g41 and g43 isnt even noticeaple in real combat. Dont know if you tested g41 but only down side is reload(double strippeclip reload even for 1 bullet)
Also fg42 is classified as semiauto rifle in this game and its recoil is almost half when compared to svt
yea, the G41 just has bad sights, and bad reload. But the power of these rifles is comparable.
Germany has the best MGs, Soviets have the best SMGs. MGs are better weapons that SMGs in general, but Gunners dont get the 35 hp bonus perk, and Assaulters can run faster.
you really chose the SVT and G41 and not, say the second tier snipers for moscow (a semi automatic SVT38 and a Pre War bolt action Kar 98K)? Or the Madsen vs the MG13 which is singlehanded dominating defense missions? Even the Panzer III v the T-26 (the only thing ive noticed here is the T-26 seems to be more reliable with doing post pen damage)
Yes, this is an issue, but comparing literally minute differences of horizontal/vertical recoil and velocities in a game where most battles are far from the fast pace of call of duty and most engagements are under 100m is just kinda…
Well it completely undermines your entire argument. the velocities hardly matter, and in a game where a one shot kill is the norm, is recoil seriously that big of an issue that it completely ruins the game for one gun to have less than 10% more recoil than another?
Why not compare sight qualities, i cant hit jack diddly with a starter mosin or a Dragoon at medium range because of those irons, but ive taken top spot with only Kar98s plenty; and what about a Puma facing the Stuart only to have a jumbo facing that same puma; or hows about the Pe-3 only getting a measly 6 rockets to the Bf-110’s 250kg nuclear weapon while also being an exponentially better aircraft in every way?
You have the point, but you’re using all the wrong items to back it up here. 2 extra ticks of recoil will do nothing in a competitive scenario- take the AK-47 and M4A4 in CSGO
I think the idea is to aim towards a sort of chaotic balance - Without direct counterparts.
It’s more difficult to balance things without mirror unlocks, but it’s arguably more realistic, and I think it’s more fun as well. Balance can still be achieved, as long as the appropriate counterweights exist. Germans have better tanks for example.
We’re going to completely ignore the other factors other than recoil? Again, the closest equivalent it has is the ZH-29, and nobody said anything about a major difference in unlock level. It could be a difference as little as a single level.
Well, unless you count the sniper SVT-38, which can literally be treated as a semi-auto rifle with an ACOG scope at level 16 in a campaign where no one has access to semi-automatics until level 21.
Now, the entire point of the thread isn’t just about the SVT vs G41, since everyone seems inclined to focus on it.
It’s literally to implement asymmetric campaign unlocks. What I mentioned is simply an example, and whether or not it belongs is something up for debate. The concept of asymmetrical unlocks to balance weapons and vehicles that are otherwise superior, like how the 1938 Mosin carbine is outright inferior to a pre-war K98 despite being unlocked at the same level, or how Jumbos in normandy are unlocked at the same level as a P4H.
What should and shouldn’t be moved up or down the progression tree is going to be completely up to debate. I just want to introduce this as a possible way to balance otherwise terrible mirror comparisons
i dont see level unlocks as a game changer, because in my experience outside of Moscow campaign there is a huge imbalance in tech. My level 5 axis comes up against full kitted jumbos constantly only for my level 6 US infantry to be mowed down by an MG-42 while crossing a street. Even in moscow, My T-60 faced the tier III unlock Panzer III constantly, and i endlessly run into people toting the end game SMGs, PZB-39 and panzer IV E, and i just got level 12.
when 5-6 players have those SVTs and the germans have none, its game breaking. But, if the germans have 2-3 MG-13s and the russians only have one level 3 madsen squad, its equally game breaking. Without a proper matchmaker to limit what can face what which will annihilate the currently nice and short queue times, asymmetric levelling isnt a possibility as all it will ultimately do is stack those aforementioned teams even further because one side has an extra grind to get the counter weapon, but they still face the exact same player pool whether or not they have said weapon.
ok for one, i said my T-60 against the late Panzer III; and if you actually play the campaign you know damn well the Panzer II cant even pen a T-26, but the T-60 can rip the early Pz III
For two, I main the USSR, not the germans, in Moscow because i enjoy the early russian weapons and im already grinding the germans in normandy, in both cases i would say the germans have the advantage but are dragged down by their lack of utility and the players’ refusals to micro their squads and equipment; most normandy losses are a result of a single M4 being left unchecked, not because springfields are better than kar98s.
For three, this was about the lack of change asymmetric levelling would bring within the current meta and mechanics would bring, and i even pointed out that the main issue isnt the weapons, but the fact that teams can get so stacked WITH those weapons, asymmetric levelling would only stack that stacking further, not solve it, because then player B has no counter to player A.
The tanks have too many factors to compare simply. Speed, turret speed, acceleration, cannon, armor… All of these contribute. The German tanks are mostly slower, but the Pz.III E is the fastest available. The Pz.IV E has the biggest cannon and better front armor than the T-28, but the T-28 has loads of added anti-infantry ability with the fast turning machineguns.
I will say that the final Russian unlock, the T-50, feels extremely underwhelming. Uses the same 45mm cannon as the tank you get at what, level 3? Except with much slower turret movement? Not really sure what the idea was with this one. I do universally better in the T-28 because of the bigger, faster, better in every way cannon.
An extra MG doesn’t make up for extreme vulnerability - the T-28 can be penetrated by every German tank - even the Pz-2, and the early P3’s have 2 MG’s too - in a turret that revolves and not just over a limited front arc (same on T-50). Plus having drum magazines is another limitation on all soviet tank MG’s - lots of factors, as you say!
And yes the T-50’s 45mm is an adequate gun for early war, but not particularly powerful in any manner, and the turret traverse is slow - only marginally faster than the P3, which is pretty bad.
Lots of people want some pretty spurious “accuracy” in this game - this or that has 1 or 2 factors that make it marginally better or worse in some situations than something else… so nerfing or buffing is obviously required…
But everything has to fit in to 30 levels (so far) - measuring whether some advantage or disadvantage is actually worth a level shift - a 1/30th change (and what else would have to be shifted to make room and is THAT worth it) - is something “the-various-boo’s” don’t seen to understand as a concept.
Yea, the T-28 is vulnerable, but the T-50 (while well armored) isn’t able to consistently pen upper tier German stuff… And the single MG is a lot slower, being tied to the movement of the main turret. The MG’s on the 28 move orders of magnitude faster, it’s really great for mowing down infantry from the right position. Yea, another tank spots you before you can return fire, you’re usually dead… But at least you can do the same to them.
On the other hand, the slow and ineffective turret on the T-50 is a complete dealbreaker to me. Even if you could consistently get pens with the 45mm (which is already a “maybe”), being unable to point it at the enemy before they do the same… Feels bad to me. I don’t know what to do with the extra armor, only really helps against any low tier tanks who spot me first. The T-26 and the BT-7 both have double the turret speed of the 50, with the same gun. The 28 is almost as fast as those two, with a much larger gun.
… And I was wrong, the T-28 actually has the biggest main gun in the campaign… A 76mm as opposed to the German 75mm on the IV-J heh. Matter of taste at the end of the day, just felt like rambling about why I drive the WW1-looking soviet junker that is the 28
The T-50 is exactly what you feel like when using the Pz III E against T-60s. Slow af but invulnerable. You can take your time and shoot the T-60s. If Axis players have found uses for their tanks, I am very sure T-50 has its uses in the game.
As someone who is not very good at tank to tank combat, T-50 is what I’ll take. Provided that I stay clear of explosives, it is the tank I’ll have the most success with.
