I’m confused. In the new campaign, the 1941 Johnson LMG is a gunner weapon, but its closest real-world or in game analogue, the FG-42, is a trooper weapon in both campaigns where it’s present. Despite both weapons being of similar capability, and both being fielded in relatively low numbers by specialist forces (Fallschirmjager or the Devil’s Brigade, some USMC raider units until they wore out and were replaced by BARs). Why the difference? I’ll admit, the FG-42 being a troops choice hasn’t turned out to be the glaring balance issue I thought it would be a year or more ago, but I still can’t make this make sense.
2 Likes
Balance, japanese in 2 major update for sure get outgunned by american, adding the jhonson for all soldier already from now instantly kill the campaign
1 Like
I never said the 1941 LMG should be a troops weapon, just that I was confused about why the FG-42 is and the 1941 isn’t.
If asked to suggest a change, at a minimum I’d say the FG-42 should be a gunner weapon, and for balance sake the M2 Carbine in Normandy should be an assaulter weapon. As it sits, the two weapons aren’t really equivalent. Comparing the two with max upgrades, the FG-42 is a one-shot down, two-shot kill on any soldier without the vitality perk out to 100 meters, while the M2 is a two-shot down, three shot kill at the same distance and doesn’t benefit from the rifle rate of fire upgrade, while the FG42 starts with the same RoF and gets the upgrade for reasons.
In an ideal world, we’d have a separate class for airborne troops, and FG-42 and M2 carbine could be classlocked to them. That would make Fallschirmjagers more effective than US Airborne in the Meta, but wouldn’t affect the overall balance of the game too much, and be closer (not perfect) to historical accuracy for equipment loads.
3 Likes
Fg42 is needed to counter avs36 and avt40. In terms of classification,FG42 is more of automatic rifle or battle rifle, while 1941 is really a lmg.
3 Likes
Would the AVS 36 be feasible to call a machine gun like the BAR?
There is no logic to it. The end.
2 Likes
I think like a few other weapons in the game, we need to ask what a rifleman weapon vs a gunner weapon vs an assaulter weapon should be
Only 15 round, too little for machine gun.
1 Like
I’m confused.
How is it possible for US player in Pacific to ask for better gun?
And “German did it, so USA should be able to do it too” is not a clever argument in a ww2 game.
I can see that argument, but I have to disagree. In berlin, you don’t need two variants of the FG-42 (an LMG designed so that it could also do battle rifle things) to counter two soviet battle rifles (one intended as such, the AVS-36, and one pressed into service because of a shortage of LMGs, the AVT-40) which each have a smaller magazine capacity, lower rate of fire, and more than twice the recoil of the FG-42. Honestly, without the 40% vertical recoil reduction perk, the only benefit to either of the russian autorifles is +5 rounds magazine over the SVT40.
For the sake of clarity, the FG-42 is less LMG and more Automatic Rifle the same way the BAR and 1941 Johnson are, and they’re classed as LMGs. The only logic that I’ve seen supporting the FG-42 as a troops choice is that was their intended use with the FSJ, but I argue that never became reality and also, even if we accept the FG-42 as a standard infantry arm, it was never intended to be used by the entire wehrmacht, as it can be in the game. Give me airborne class and class-locked airborne weapons, or make the FG-42 an LMG, anything less is pure nonsense. ( I would also not enjoy seeing the BAR or Johnson LMG as trooper weapons.)
I’d say the AVS with its high recoil and perk-dependent usefulness is probably fine as a trooper weapon, it’s only good a)up close b)with the 40% vert reduction or c)used semi-auto as a higher capacity svt38/40. The AVT, though, could get some recoil reduction and be treated as an LMG and I wouldn’t hate that, I’d probably take it over the DP any day.
The vast majority of magazine-fed LMGs have 20 round magazines, with few exceptions like the Madsen, MG-15, Vickers etc. I don’t think five less in a lighter, more mobile weapon platform with a shorter reload time would be so bad for gunners.
Please, point out for the class where I asked for a better gun.
3 Likes
IRL, the BAR was a squad support weapon, although it could not really be called a LMG but it was used in that role, it was heavy and generally not anywhere near as handy as it is in game, shoulder firing it irl was almost imposable to be accurate with at any kind of range.
The FG 42 was intended to be a general issue Rifle not a LMG, irl, most German FJ squad late war were issued with one SLR, and often it was an FG 42, as there were not sufficient numbers of them to issue to ever FJ riflemen, some units did see more than just one in a squad though.
In game, there crazy, I mean the Devs, so no real world usage can be used to determine how the guns are issued in game as it’s totally unrealistic the way weapons are allotted and carried in game.
They dont need ask for better gun they already have them listed in future update
Nuclear option and give them to a new class altogether?
It can be a problem for japanese we got type 96, type 97, type 98, type 99, type 100.
We are already running low on numbers.
Type 101 is a shotgun!
Type 102 is maybe the solution to improve the japanese firepower:
1 Like
According to the datamined statistic by someone. AVS36 and AVT40 receive recoil modifier. So the avs36 and avt40 in fact have better recoil and dispersion after Fg42 have been nerfed.
It is because Us only have m1919a6 that have decent ammo count. German don’t need FG42 AS LMG because they have things like mg34 and mg42 that is more like a mg.
The least amount of lmg bullet count in this game is 20, 15 is 25% less than it. Ammo count is a crucial part for lmg.
There are all the number from type 3 to 95
1 Like
FG 42 and BAR both had the wunderwaffe effect where they were originally intended to be standard issue for everyone but that proved unfeasible.
Intentions of a weapon shouldn’t be used to balance them.
1 Like
I don’t want to live in a world where I have to choose between the STG44 and the FG42 or between the MG42 and the FG42.
I already had to choose between the Panther and the Tiger and it was heart breaking
1 Like
Except in the case of the BAR, the Americans had the industrial capacity where if an infantry company wanted to only field BARs, their only real barrier of entry was convincing the CO that they should get it. Not saying the BAR should be moved to the infantry slot, just stating a fun fact.
1 Like
Alright, ignoring real-world intended or actual usage of the weapons being compared (FG-42, BAR, and Johnson LMG), why the actual fuck is the FG-42, arguably the most capable of the three, a trooper weapon, when the other two are limited to gunners?
That’d be my preference. Give us Airborne units in normandy, even if they don’t add parachute insertion mechanics, and give the FG-42 and M2 carbine to those classes exclusively. Could do the same in Berlin with some kind of specialist units that get the AVS/AVT and both versions of the FG42
I honestly don’t see a major imbalance in the Pacific for firepower. Not every level is perfectly equivalent for each faction (looking at you, levels 10, 13, 19 and 26), but overall the balance isn’t awful. Sure, Japanese SMGs don’t hit hard, and their tanks are mostly hot garbage, but the gunplay is pretty fairly balanced IMHO and it’s nice to have a campaign where armor and CAS aren’t always a problem.
Get me a link if you can, first I’ve heard of it. Regardless of some hidden modifier, though, the AVS and AVT both recoil a lot more than the FG-42, and have less capacity to boot. If the FG-42 is there to balance those rifles, it’s overbalanced in Germany’s favor.
Ah, but the FG-42 was in Normandy long before the 1919A6 was in the game. Sure, Germany has better LMGs than the US, and more historical choices for the time period. I wouldn’t say the number of options makes the FG-42 justifiable as a trooper weapon, tho.
And most of the LMGs in game are heavy and slow, so having the choice to make your gunners more mobile at the cost of ammo capacity is one I’d seriously consider, especially since the US/Soviets don’t have solid counters to the MG34/42 anyway. 1919a6 is slow, with a BIG belt, sure, and DT-29 has 63 round drums, but it’s also slow. Lighter, faster gunners, slightly less ammo than the BAR? I don’t think that’s a bad deal.
I don’t either
This should be the choice presented until/unless they classlock FG-42 to FSJ
Panther is the better tank in game. Better armor, faster gun. Just my opinion.
I would use them. Like I said, faster/lighter is a compromise worth thinking about. I wouldn’t lock them to assaulters, two of the soviet campains have the Fedorov so the AVS/AVT just wouldn’t get used and in Stalingrad th AVT is locked to Engineers and Assaulters. That wouldn’t be bad, I guess, if they gave the AVS/AVT/FG-42/M2/Johnson LMG/Fedorov/STG variants the same treatment in every campaign. It wouldn’t make loads of sense, but it would be consistent and balanced. Replace the Johnson as an LMG choice with the 1919a6 or Stinger.