I counted downing someone as a kill, as if they don’t have a medpack, it is. It also effectively takes out the average soldier long enough to continue dealing with other immediate threats. If you’d prefer the breakdown with fully taking out a soldier considered, under the assumption the soldier downs at least once;
Kill+downing capacity;
(pre-nerf) FG42 at 50 kill capacity
M2 at 30 kill capacity
M1 Carbine at 25 kill capacity
(post-nerf) FG42 at 20 kill capacity
Garand at 16 kill capacity
Gewehr at 15 kill capacity
Lee-Enfield at 15 kill capacity
All other bolt actions at 12 kill capacity
Have you ever held an FG in your hands? It doesn’t kill with 1 round to the arms and legs, which happens all the time up close, and at medium ranges you need 2 rounds even to the body. Exactly the same as with the M1 or M2 or Garand (Perhaps somewhere there is a point where they require 3 bullets, while two with the FG)
I also note that even by your current calculations, which as I said, I think are useless because they don’t reflect anything, you can see that FG 42 is now barely more effective than g43 and Garand, which open at level 7. My friend yesterday reached level 7 in a day, but to 23 it will take him at least a couple of weeks.
And yet I’ll clarify again: Don’t you think that especially in the case of semi-automatic rifles and rifles, this figure is very small. 15 kills with ghewer if you only shoot the body at close range and do not miss a single shot, as well as your bot has not spent 5-10 rounds in the magazine until you select it.
In a real situation half of the first magazine is spent by the bot, you miss at best every third shot, and most likely every second shot, because you often shoot at a running target, over obstacles or after a concussion, when the sight flies all over the screen. It’s also worth considering how much you’ll miss in close combat, when you spin the camera and take unnecessary shots at the enemy, who ran out at you sharply.
Therefore, the real number is at least half as many. 7 kills with a g43? And then I have to switch to another fighter? Oh, he’s already dead, because 1 live player easily kill 5-6 bots in a couple of seconds at close range. Build a crate of ammo? Oh, you’re not an engineer, your engineer is already dead, and even if you are still an engineer (really why would you use him as the first fighter in the squad), you have to spend about 10 seconds just to put the crate, and actually you are standing on the point where US soldiers are running, bombs are dropping and a tank is firing. What are your chances of replenishing your ammo?
It’s the same damage as the Gewehr, but with less recoil, more accuracy, and more ammo. If you want to break things down further, we can simply look at overall base damage potential of carried stock ammo, as base damage times the carried round count;
Pre-nerf FG42: 1200
Theoretical Post-nerf FG42 + 1 more magazine: 720
M2 Carbine: 657
M1 Carbine: 540
Post-nerf FG42: 480
Lee-Enfield: 420
M1 Garand: 384
Gewehr 43: 360
Other Bolt actions: 350
Now, do you think the FG42, which is objectively a better gun than the M2 carbine, and is unlocked at the same level, should also have more ammo, e.g. more damage capacity than the M2 carbine?
Meanwhile, you know what I think you should do, if you’re out of ammo, and don’t have any options to get to an ammo crate, or don’t have any AI left? Pick up a rifle off a dead soldier and suicide rush, take out any enemies you still can, then respawn at the nearest respawn beacon, preferably one you placed that you know where it’s at so it’s easy to get back into position from. That’s what I do. If it happens often enough for you, invest in an ammo backpack instead of medkits or more grenades. Realize that you’re on the same level playing field as everyone else. Maybe main a gunner instead of a trooper. You have a lot of options.
Tell me, if you had all that more extra ammo, would you ever consider using the ammo backpack? Or do you just hate the fact that there’s a reason to use that ammo backpack and you don’t want to make tough decisions on kitting out your soldiers, and there are actually trade-offs to things, and the thought you can’t have the best of everything all at the same time is what really is the problem for you?
The weapon selection system is very uncomfortable, and the developers said they wanted to leave it that way. Don’t you notice that? Sometimes weapons just don’t come up from certain fighters.
I’m not talking about going back to 20\80, that’s quite unnecessary. But 20\40 minimum or 20\60 would still often make me think about choosing an ammo pouch.
I think all rifles are short on ammo. On the g43 I was constantly out of ammo, forced to shoot very slowly.
What if I can’t equip a magazine pouch. I use the engineer squad and to get it I have to first get 6-10 levels in the blue branch and then as many more in the red branch. That’s dozens of battles without ammo.
Again, I want more ammo so the bots live longer, but I can’t choose that now because I have no ammo.
FG 42 should just be better than g43 because people get levels for it. Just like the Jumbo is better than the sherman, the sherman is better than the M8 or m5a1, why don’t you have an issue with tanks?
It would be funny to play a game for a long time and then realize “why would I want this, it’s barely better than the one I got a month ago”
Giving the Americans normal weapons is a good idea (just let’s remember then about the respawn time, tanks and planes that the US has better). Giving rifles 25-40 rounds is a bad idea.
I don’t understand the weird cries of “you’re going to pick these weapons out for all the soldiers”. I started out with the Mp34 on my assault rifles, changed to the fnab because it was better, then to the Mp40 because it was better, and then to the MP-35 because it was better. When I get the beretta m38, I don’t rule out it being slightly better again. That’s the way it should be as the level increases. You use garand instead of bolt guns, and also Jumbo, instead of sherman, because they are just better.
By the way, why do the M1 and M2 have more than 2 magazines since they are available to all classes and are as semi-automatic\automatic as the FG?
Probably because the M1 and M2 carbines deal significantly lower damage per shot and have longer times to kill than the other trooper weapons, (2 shots to down to the chest vs 1 shot to down to the chest, 3 shots to kill vs 2 shots to kill, faster damage dropoff, more recoil per second, etc. There’s a lot of factors that make them worse in most every other regard)
Also I still use the Lee-Enfield and Ross on some of my soldiers, namely the ones that I expect to engage at longer range - mortar and sniper squads, mainly. Just like I give carbines to my non-assaulters in my assaulter squads. Right tool for the job and all that.
As is, I die 8-9 times out of 10 before I run into ammo shortages with any weapon, with the exception of the Gewehr and Garand. They could probably use an extra magazine each. But that would still only put their ammo count on par with what the FG42 has right now. So no, I don’t think the FG42 needs that extra ammo. And again, in my experience, on defense I usually have a few ammo crates I’ve placed about that I can run to when needed if I don’t have ammo. But that may just be me, given I never go too far from the cap when I’m defending on invasion, and on conquest I tend to pop down an ammo crate near each cap when I get the chance, so there’s generally a chance for me to grab more ammo on a regular basis.
Okay, we won’t come to a common denominator. You simultaneously say that the amount of ammunition doesn’t matter, and then you say that it’s right to reduce it.
Now the other question is: Do you lose more often than 50%? Do you consider allies to be weak? Or would you agree that each side has some stronger sides?
When I play alone I have a win percentage (in my personal feeling) of just over 50%, but I’m consistently at the top of the rankings and make a huge contribution to winning, so if I weren’t there, the team would often lose the games I did help win.
Are you really convinced that the Germans are times stronger? I do not understand why conclusions are made based on one parameter. The US wins easily enough as it’s easier to attack - you always know where the enemy is and one bomber can do 20-30 kills at a time and then the infantry just takes over the point. Defenders are forced to sit on the point, getting head bombs and jumbo shells, because if they’re spread out on the flanks, one nimble American will run into the point and take it over (or at least move the tackle a lot)
About the bolt-action rifles, my comparison was inappropriate. No one plays with Bren when there is a Bar, it’s better that way. By the way about the jumbo you didn’t answer.
P.S. Standard FG ammo now I am short 7-8 times out of 10. This is a good indicator that something is not right now. Applies to all rifles.
My win rate as Allies in Normandy is about 60%. But I also regularly get first place, and I very, very rarely ever see Axis put down spawn beacons. (still not great for allies, but I more often see other people putting down spawn beacons as allies than on the Axis side) I’ve not played Axis nearly as much, but my recorded win rate is 56% as Axis as well in Normandy. I have not unlocked the FG42 yet as I’m only rank 11 as Axis on Normandy. (I got pulled into Berlin by being gifted CBT access, where I’m playing Axis as my main, and have a winrate of 38%, because unlike Normandy, the Axis is actually in a bad spot on Berlin, in my experience)
I say that the amount of ammo, now, post-nerf, seems about right to me, based on my experience with other weapons in the game. Treat the FG42 as a semi-auto and it’s king of the trooper weapons as far as stats are concerned and by my limited use of picking them off of dead soldiers.
I’ve covered in multiple threads multiple times that the Jumbo should not have been introduced, unless it was alongside a Panther as a contemporary to such, and that an M4A1 76 (W) would have been the appropriate counterpart to the Panzer IVH. Meanwhile, low-level axis players have it far easier in Normandy, with the Puma and Panzer IIIN being leagues better than the M5A1 Stuart and M8 Scott. (With the M5A1 being basically totally useless save as cannon fodder)
Soldiers have no advantage over an assault squad or machine gunners. These squads are larger and much more effective.
Radiators are weak now, engineers don’t fire their weapons much anyway, and no one plays the grenade launcher squad at all, it seems to me.
So no, you have 5 strong machine guns in one squad, which is better than an engineer squad with FG.
As an Engineer main, I think you underestimate things. Sure, I’ll fortify a point before I do anything else, but then I need to get back into the fight. AT guns are quite effective at long range for both dealing with tanks and sniping incoming infantry. AA guns and MG nests are obviously good for holding back infantry. Tank barricades are absolutely amazing when you’re on the defensive side of a map at protecting your capture points. Sandbags are also good, especially for AI soldiers which predictably bunch up on capture points they’re ordered to defend.
Mortar squads are a niche, but I use them on Normandy to deal with MG nests in invasion maps. Radio operators I put in nearly every squad on both Axis and Allies to deal with potential respawn beacons and to punish people funneling a particular point. Large trooper squads are good for taking capture points due to their numbers increasing the cap speed. And of course, in assaulter and gunner squads you have a few numbers to fill up that are going to use general trooper weapons regardless.
It seems to me that the speed of building engineers is very low. Tanks destroy them instantly, the Germans’ anti-tank cannon barely penetrate the jumbo (even into the side at a slight angle). And the machine gun nest takes a very long time to build and you are defenseless, because any sniper or enemy machine gunner will break your machine gun, let alone a tank.
In my practice engineers did not win games, except by competent respawning.
In my experience, I beg to differ, though I do agree that the amount of time it takes to build some of the engineer emplacements is excessive. (especially the MG nest, but that comes from Gaijin overnerfing things from the CBT, as the Engineer was at the time largely just used to place an MG nest and then use that to mow down enemies)
I do think that the AT gun will get better for the axis when they implement nation specific engineer emplacements, as they should get a 50mm towed gun instead of a 37mm. Won’t help with a Jumbo, but neither will the 37mm really help with a Panther when they come out. Doesn’t change the fact that the Jumbo is maybe 1 in 8 tanks I see on Allied teams in normandy though, and it being enough to deal with basically everything else, and that the AT gun is still more useful in a sniping role vs infantry with HE regardless.
And placing down Czech hedgehogs to deny the enemy the option to bring a tank into an area is incredibly powerful if you’re on the Axis side on defense.
Panther is not in the Normandy campaign, why talk about it while it is not there. Now maybe there are not so many jumbos yet, but their number will only increase, and yet I see it in every second battle, and the players who have it often play the whole game on it.
I have tried hedgehogs, but often the bottlenecks are located so (1-2 points in the bottom of the D) that the tanks at 1 point do not reach the hedgehog, and further on the 2 point appear beyond them.
You do need to update hedgehogs as the battle gets further along on invasion, yes. Hopefully the devs will rework them like they did spawn beacons. But it’s fairly straightforward to block tanks off at a few lines on the D-Day map especially, but also in the other more urban areas of other invasion maps. Even not entirely blocking off an avenue of approach is necessary in some cases, if you have a trap set up in one way or another (and then can use that tank wreck to finish off the blockade, lol)