Weapon stats should be based on real world (specificly historical) performances of weapons, if you got a source for these RoF changes then by all means, I support it.
On this topic of sources, Chris McNab writes in the “Soviet Submachine Guns of World War II” that the “PPS” has a rate of fire of 650rpm** (he does not deffirantiate between models, maybe he’s right to do so in terms of RoF idk), and the PPSh-41 900rpm* (oof for Soviets if true).
These stats of the PPS family he claims comes directly from the translation of the official Soviet manual by one Major James F. Gebhardt, sadly I don’t have access to this document, though I did find the original Russian manual of which it was translated from, I tried to read it but as it turns out I can’t read Russian.
*Page 32
**Page 34
Anyone else want to have a crack at this?
Edit: just noticed, this is the PPSH manual, heh yeah I can’t read Russian, good luck to anyone trying to find the actual manual!
This doesn’t always lead to a good balance of gameplay, which is more important than what a museum thinks. The guns should be balanced within Enlisted, for Enlisted, for a better health of the game.
Then maybe the game has some thinking to do when it comes to advantaging high rate of fire weapons, because if it really was so good in real life this would be the norm, but we both know (I hope) that most historical SMGs at the time had a RoF of around 500rpm.
Anyway, I think being real to history is better, then balance around that, and we both know the Devs really only consider changes if you got sources to back them up, so there’s that as well. Not often me and the devs agree on how the game should be run.
Well PPS wouldn’t be as unfair if Soviets wouldn’t have body armor - as 2 hit kill MP40 vs 3 hit kill PPS sounds fair enough, Uragan however is simply waaay too good for BR2.
I think the devs should really put their efforts together and prioritising on body armor, because a nerf to PPS should be discussed AFTER a body armor rework, otherwise this entire issue will get too complicated.
Not an issue since less than 6.8 damage will down in 3 shots and also kill with high chance in 3 shots.
While 6.8 or more damage will always down in 2 shots and kill in 4 shots.
Its just how down state works (a weird mechanic tbh)
So the higher damage guns need to spend more time on a single target.
Lanchester that has 6.8 damage and 690 max upgraded has been BR2 for as long as I can remember and no one has complained about it, besides maybe Dregomz.
Russian sources indicate that the PPS-43’s rate of fire can indeed reach 700 rounds per minute, while the PPS-43 manual specifies a rate of 650 rounds per minute. In summary, data ranging from 600 to 700 rounds per minute exists and is not incorrect.
I found this Soviet soldier’s memo for the PPS. The inscription at the top translates roughly as “Memo on handling and storage.”
So the PPS has quite a historical rate of fire.
Yep, would appear so, maybe should be lowered to be in the middle of the two ends as the average (as in 650rpm), as that seems to be the standard for most other weapons in the game (and in general a good standard to follow imo).
In other words, the gun can stay as is, or lowered by only a mere 50rpm, and maybe buff the PPS 42 up to the 43s stats if indeed the guns were so similar. I have argued for a similar change to the Lee-Enfield rifles in the past too, I got to be consistent.
Get rid of body armor all together as all factions had it, but NONE used because it was too heavy and cumbersome. However, if DF insists on keeping it, and factions didn’t really use it in the war because of it’s weight, then give it a BIG weight penalty for those who use it. Slow people down like they are carrying a heavy MG, this will make using the body armor less attractive.
From a realism perspective, the in-game rate of fire matches real-world data. However, from a balance standpoint, if enemies are not wearing body armor, the PPS-43’s performance is not outstanding. Among BR2 weapons, it ranks in the mid-to-lower tier, with a slower time-to-kill (TTK) compared to the MP40, Lanchester, M1A1 Thompson, Beretta M1918, and others. Therefore, there is no justification for nerfing it.
The Soviet advantage does not lie with the PPS-43, which is rather mediocre or even poor. Instead, their advantage comes from body armor, which ruins the TTK of low-rate-of-fire submachine guns like the MP40.
The question of WW2 historical use of body armour really is a paradox, on the one hand we have clear and undeniable evidence that they were manufactured, issued and (more importantly) used to a significant extend (I class “significant” as around 1% of combat troops, as in "more than what you’d expect). However, we also have significant sources of actual solders stating they often just abandoned the things as the benefit they gave did not outweight the manouverability drawbacks.
So on the one hand, they were used, on the other people hated using them and often abandoned them after only some use.
