Explain how a weapon with 12 damage spends 1 shot and 7.3 spends 6-8 shots. I think 2 shots from a 7.3 does more damage than 1 from a 12.
30+30 is 60, which is a lot anyway. Letâs be honest, by your own logic you donât need 3 magazines. âBalance the SMG balance with 7.3 damage per soldier.â
I donât have an opinion at all, but if the community thinks that SMGs shouldnât be and everyone and 40 rounds is enough, then 60 is also enough
Buddy, everyone cried so much over the fg and was foaming at the mouth arguing that 40 rounds was enough, so 60 too? Or âWe have Jumbo, P47, Thompson, but please, I want a 30 round machine gun for each soldier and 90 rounds, and the nasty Germans will only have 40. Iâm sure itâs only fair, Mom!â
Isnât 30+30 the correct ammunition âblahblahblah 2 magazines or 30 rounds of ammo for semi-automatic riflesâ. Thereâs 60 rounds here because of less damage.
bc counting that with a full auto you cant stop precisely at the number of round needed to kill so the estimate will be around 6/8 depending on your skill (or you can use a macro but why?)
and yes 7.3 dmg in 10M you need ti lick the nemy face to 2 shot him, with the fg you can safely shot from even 70M
i think an apropiate number of ammunition for the m2 would be 75 round but you cant put 2 magazione and a half in the game
No, my friend. 60 rounds is already more than any other semi-auto rifle, and 90 is close to what full SMGs have, like the Beretta M38, only it has 5.7 damage.
Come on, defenders of 2 magazines, start voting for a reduction. Otherwise itâs just a hypocritical âweâre breaking all the other faction because I canât handle itâ cry.
So shoot 1 round at a time with quick clicks. I remember back in June being told how an fg could kill 40\2 = 20 people in bursts, back then no one was even listening to how many bullets flew by.
You told me yourself âaim better, why does 40 rounds last you so littleâ. Why donât you always shoot in bursts with your M2?
Letâs now the dry numbers, because I liked to poke them when they reduced the ammunition:
7.3 * 60 = 438
7.3 * 90 = 657
12 * 40 = 480
It seems obvious to me where to round up. Note that 438 is still the second highest damage per ammo. The M2 now has first place by a huge margin, like the fg-42 once did. Shall we keep balancing? Or do we stop when your faction has a big lead?
The amount of ammo in the M2 surprised me back in May, but since no one was using it, there was no point in discussing it.
you dont understand that an m2 is not a rifle you dont stay in a defensive position depleting all your ammo, with the m2 you dont tap and kill gradually, you enter a room and try to kill all in full auto thats why my estimate of 6/8 round per enemy.
m2 is not a rifle, its not used like one, and the count of the ammunition dont reflect one
with your line of think even the m3a1 need a nerf 150 round 8.2 DMG its the same as a fg42?
Understandably, the arguments for how to use it began. I too attack fg or gewehr and am short on ammo, that didnât interest you that time, donât you dare make that argument now then. âJust aim betterâ.
m3a1 is an SMG class weapon . there weapons have 5 magazines each (except Thompson and M38 why, which is nonsense). Your assaulters have it. There is nothing wrong with it.
M2 - weapons for any soldier. Hell, just copy here the whining about âunrealistic squads with fully automatic weaponsâ from a couple months ago. Stop being biased.
90 rounds is almost like a Thompson or M38. Only without the restrictions. It was bullshit before, but no one was shooting because of the scope, so I didnât discuss the issue.
60 is fine, take the pouches or live like all players with gewehr, garand, fg-42.
What you didnt understand? Ofcourse devs should reduce ammo to 2 magazines. And just like you said yourself: everything has its price.
Price here is after that devs should handle it like true semi rifle and increase damage to 12. It would be better then fg but hey, some (and only one) weapon is always best.
Iâll just say it again. I understand that the allies already have better planes, tanks, SMG. Now they need SMG for every soldier and 90 rounds, fg is still OP and makes up for it all. no.
i still dont use it, i finished try it for 6 games just 10 minutes ago and from 20+ meters it require 3 shots its not a good weapon if you are not in very very very short range.
for me the m2 is an 3/10 even with 120 round
the fg42 with 60 round 8.5/10 just for the lack of ammo
An SMG with 7.3 damage is a bad weapon. Makes sense.
If at 20 meters you need 2 shots, it means you hit an arm or a leg (or the enemy had the skill of 35% survivability), because the fighter has 10 health and the damage at 20 meters can not fall 7.3>4.9. FG in this case will also kill with 2 hits.
Just because you donât like it doesnât mean itâs not powerful. In fact, it is the best SMG in the game. Judging by the video that was attached, the recoil has become extremely controllable.
bc its an smg and full auto you cant shoot precisely like a rifle, and cmon with an fg42 if you cant shoot people in the chest form 20 meters go check your eye sight.
Shoot 1 round in the chest at 20 yards 2 times with an M2. Double standards.
And what difference does it make if you can now take squad 9 SMG instead of squad 4 SMG.
Allies Players âWhen we have this is normal and right.â