FG42 vs M2
1 hit kill vs 2 hit kill
less recoil vs more recoil
Same RoF
20 rounds vs 30 rounds
Same weight so both have the same move speed
the only advantage is the M2 has is 10 more rounds which is kinda not true
FG42 can get 20 kills in a single clip
M2 can get 15 kills in a single clip
FG42 is available for sniper/engineer/infantry/artillery/mortar/flame/bomber +1 class
M2 is available for engineer/infantry/artillery/mortar/flame/bomber
Really a big issue with the M2/FG42 is they replace the need for assault for both teams. Do you want an automatic that 2 hitâs at 0-100m and 3+ hits at 100-200m~ range or 1 hits up to 200m. But the most equivalent comparison would be giving every class access to the Bar (though the FG42 wins there too with high RoF.)
FG 42 should just be an gunner weapon (light weight mobility lmg) and the M2 an assault weapon long range but high recoil. Why moscow feels the best campaign to play, mostly bolt actions, with a few automatics, and maybe a few semi-automatics, with long clear paths where semi-autos canât 1 tap you from but you can 1hitko. Normandy bolt actions are thrown out the door because the engagement range is so small due to constant cover youâre usually in the 1HKO range of garand/g43/fg42.
A20 can not ez/pz destroy enemy planes. If your A20 is gunning down planes and winning dog fights there is a massive skill cap vs him and your BF plane drivers. Also due to how AP shells work for USA itâs kinda the same battle as it canât penetrate your armor from the front on your later tanks (but slow as all hell) itâs why I run the puma just quickly get behind it and give it a lil love tap in the rear, iâve got it fully upgraded so it goes at 100kph at full speed. The only thing Iâm afraid of on the puma is the bomber class.
Also 20 rounds is 2x the rounds and total ammo to the G43, and the G1 garand has 8 rounds so itâs more 12 rounds better with less recoil. (Garand does the same damage + more recoil compared to the G43/FG42). I think the big issue of the FG42 is it just replaces everything.
Infantry just become FG42/Kar Grenade, than every other soldier has an FG42/Class item. There isnât an⌠oh maybe I should use X/Y/Z
WHY would you not use the less recoil, same damage with 2x the ammo gun. The M2 I can say itâs a trade off for long range kill and good cqc for the M2 for non infantry class, but you lose the ability to win long range engagements (mostly since you canât even see what youâre firing at) vs the M1 Garand.
Plus the A20/P47 it tanks forever to kill planes now because they nerffed plane damage like itâs freaking ridiculous I use all may ammo to kill and 110 its freaking ridiculous really
Excuse me, the US used basically nothing but semi-automatics in WW2 for standard issue rifles, betwen the Garand and M1 Carbine.
Regardless, the point about automatics aside, I see three or four ways to handle the disparity between the FG42 and the M2 carbine as an near-all classes automatic weapon;
FG42 gets made into a Gunner-only LMG at the same level as the BAR and is replaced as a carbine against the M2 with the MP43/1.
Similar to point 1, except instead of the FG42 being gunner only, the BAR becomes available for troopers and the like for the Allies.
The M2 gets removed and replaced with a new paratrooper friendly LMG like the Johnson M1941 LMG. Perhaps the M2 gets re-introduced down the line against the MP43/1 as itâs contemporary, but not necessarily.
The M2 gets a buff to recoil to bring it closer to SMGs, and the FG42 gets itâs recoil nerfed to be on par with other one-hit kill semi-autos and LMGs.
I was talking about the German squads, which were equipped with 70% bolt action rifles.
Anyways, it doesnât make sense that you want troopers running around with bar. Thatâs the same as having troopers running around with the fg42.
The M2 carbine has a high rate of fire and high damage. When you said âbuffâ to bring it closer to smgâs, I donât know what youâre trying to say. It has a pretty high recoil already, so by âbuffingâ youâre increasing it more. Donât you mean ânerfâ? If the recoil was nerfed, that weapon would be the strongest smg in the game. 7.3 base damage and over 700 rpm on average, thatâs pretty high damage. Upgraded itâs even better now.
Go play a Normandy game, the US has the advantage right now. The fg42 brings no advantage.
âbuffâ and ânerfâ as in bringing it to more ideal, and to less ideal statistics, respectively. i.e. reducing the recoil on the M2, and increasing the recoil on the FG42. As per the common terminology for both in regards to gaming metas.
Also, I am playing as an allied main in Normandy, and Normandy is my main campaign. I am basically running Garands on every soldier that can run them at the moment.
The point I was making was for a point of balance, e.g. if the Axis soldiers are running around with FG42âs, then it would make sense to give the allies an equivalent in role, thus the BAR or Johnson 1941 LMG.
You will note I have also been active in threads calling for a re-balancing of the current issues in the vehicle meta as well, such as removing the Jumbo or putting it up against a closer Axis equivalent like the Panther D. I would just like to see closer balance in the game across the board.
The M2 carbine takes more shots to kill than the FG42, loses more damage over range, and has higher recoil. Even taking into account ROF the FG42 has a shorter TTK (time to kill), and more killing potential with itâs 20 round magazine vs the M2 carbineâs 30 round magazine by the numbers.
The FG42 is the objectively superior weapon between the two, therefore the M2 carbine should get itâs recoil reduced in the instance the FG42 retains itâs current position as a near-universal gun.
In addition, the FG42 has substantially less recoil than the Gewehr 43, despite having the same killing potential per round, and the FG42 being superior in rate of fire and magazine capacity. (well, every stat, really) Thus, a recoil increase is called for, I would argue, for the FG42.
No, because the m2 carbine and fg42 arenât even competitors. Itâs the bar and the fg42. The m2 carbine is a hybrid rifle/smg. Seems fine the way it is.
The FG42 and BAR are not competitors in role - as the BAR is not available on the types of troops the FG42 is. As per my earlier comment, the M2 receiving a buff would be in the instance the FG42 isnât adjusted to either be restricted to the same classes the BAR is, the BAR is adjusted to be available to the same classes the FG42 is, or a new LMG of similar role (the Johnson 1941 LMG being the most fitting) to fill in the role as a competitor.
Everything makes sense, but leave the m2 carbine alone. Itâs a unique weapon, and every faction has their own unique weapon. You canât balance unique weapons. Ppsh russian smgs for example, you canât balance it. Itâs a unique weapon.
Iâd argue otherwise, as to some degree I think the M2 carbine would potentially have a reasonable competitor if an MP43/1 were added. Certainly they would play a bit differently, but they would both fit in the âassault rifleâ type of role.
I also feel I should make the argument that I donât think it would hurt to bring down the recoil on the M1 and M2 carbines in general to improve their performance, given they are currently not in a competitive state in the meta by the general consensus of players, at least insofar as I have observed on the forums and my own experience.
I fired the stg during CBT. It has a lower rate of fire than the m2 carbine. Itâs recoil is noticeable as well. Canât remember the damage stat though
I would assume so, given the difference in rounds. Iâm not saying they would play exactly the same, but they should be contemporaries in my opinion, and should be closer in overall performance than what one would expect from LMGs.
I mean it depends.
Doesnât mean that balance or problems in game dynamic donât exist at all right?
I also critizise the Jumbo alot, since the lategame tank dynamic in Normandy is pretty much âdesigned to not dmg each other on 80+ metersâ which just feels quite stupid.
I think in this instance, moscow feels way better because of it.
Doesnât mean that allies canât have the best tank, their coaxial MG alone is absolutely amazing compared to the german version, no matter what.
But redesigning for the sake of having a better gameflow, for example by replacing the jumbo with a tankhunter Wolverine/Hellcat that can crack anything easily with high dmg after pen, sounds like a great way to break this âdesigned to not dmg each otherâ up a little bit.
Why would you replace the Jumbo with a TD, instead of another medium tank like an M4A1 76mm, or a British medium tank, that would be a better contemporary to the Pz IVH? Especially when we have TDs confirmed to be coming anyway?
Also, germans are going to be getting a Panther, according to the Devs, so⌠while Iâd say the Jumbo should be up against the panther as a contemporary (and a 76mm sherman against the 4H), I think things should hopefully work out in the end. I hope. But yeah. I just donât know why the devs didnât think ahead.