Japan starts to get stomped more often now with US players having more BARs than ever. At this rate, Tunisia Axis is going to be better than Pacific where atleast the Axis forces in Tunisia have Panzer IIIs and IVs.
Many Axis players would be back to Normandy stomping Allies soon while Western Allies players have both Tunisia and Pacific to play in.
I like a challenge and playing Japan gives me that. You really have to think outside the box on placing rallies down and flanking. Since I unlocked type 99 it has been better. Hopefully once I get last LMG it will be good.
The pro tip with Japan is to set up rallies on flanks and set up defensive positions in houses around the objective. If you can delete allied squads or make them weak prior to getting to objective you have a chance. Slow them down and turn buildings into fortresses they cannot ignore.
I can do that where I place rally points on flanks but the problem is the teammates themselves not pushing or defending the cap point. Sure this is a problem for other campaigns too but having them with worse weapons is going to be real ugly.
Even hard maps like Tenaru River or Gabutu can be won with a competent team that builds good rally points.
It’s the worst in term of Rate of Fire.
But it got the best iron sight for long shot and quick fire.
How 72bmp will help you if you miss half your bullet or take 0.5s more time to aim.
But everybody is different. I can’t shoot anything but a BA with a close iron sight.
The sniper Type99 got a nice cracking sound, I wish it was add to the Normal Type99.
I have been wondering why they chose the late version Type 99 which is essentially a Kriegsmodell variant when the sniper version is an early one with the nice wood furniture and stuff. The Type 100 SMG we got was an early version.
True it’s strange. Anyway I prefers the Late front iron sight
No it isn’t. Allies have a massive advantage in everything other than bolt-action rifles and fighters.
It’s not.
Pacific is meme.
Its not as awful as Tunisia but heck, Im still amazed how Df fails to adapt/ learn from their mistakes. Its getting ridiculous.
This was pretty much the point. A very vocal subset of the community has been bitching about CAS being too effective since closed alpha, and the devs finally made a campaign where it’s not only less effective, it’s borderline useless.
How’s it irrelevant? The Hei is at the same level as the Carine, and the Carbine is basically useless while the Hei isn’t.
The Type 99 Late do be dogshit tho
Ah, see, you’re the reason people hate on CAS players, and why we have a longer respawn if you crash after the first bomb drop
Sight preferences are mostly matters of opinion. IRL, I love me a closed peep sight, but in game most of them take up too much screen, limiting peripheral vision, and I’m not a fan. I don’t use the type 99 late because it’s not my style, the RoF is too much slower than everything else in the campaign for it to really be usefull other than in iron-sights sniping situations. Would have been better if they’d given us the 99 Early, with about the same ROF as the Springfield, or better yet, the Type 4 Garand to compete with the M1.
Nobody I’ve seen making this argument so far has managed to justify the claim of a “massive” advantage for the USMC in game. I’ve done a lot of arguing against the idea, with logic and reason and numbers, but y’all just keep saying “nuh-uh.” Make an argument, or go away.
I said which classes the Japs have an advantage in. If you think there are others at parity, then name them.
Japan has an arguably better starter plane (.30cals on planes suck, and it gets 4 bombs instead), a better AT rifle, a sword for every soldier if you want, lunge mines, arguably overall better LMGS (they have two with 30rd mags, so more ammo carried, and they don’t do so much less damage that it makes them inarguably worse.) The Johnson might be pretty dope, haven’t got it yet, but most of the time in game the LMG with more ammo is just better. Japanese SMGS have bigger magazines on average (32-50, vs americans 20-33), fire a little slower than most of the American ones (but faster than the M3, with the end-tier smgs having the same RoF). That’s not including the damn Zero, which is fast, magically maneuverable, and has 2x 20mm cannons, which are going to be more effective against airborne or ground targets than the .50s on the current american fighters.
Is that enough japanese strengths for you to accept that most people bitching about some massive american advantage haven’t played as the US and are mad because they keep losing, and don’t understand why that might be? Player count per side, player level per side, each team’s skill level are all factors, and the weapons are close enough to parity that I can’t start to believe that the US has some overwhelming advantage in the current state of the campaign.
i am talking about his point that he was quoting me about. he is talking about hei being upgrade to BA. and i was talking about SA in japanese branch being either sidegrades (with otsu) or downgrades back to BA with type 99 late. and allies branch has pure upgrade tree from m1 carbine to garand to johnson.
no. i like playing planes and play them like they should be played. just in pacific normal CAS support is useless and suiciding becomes best tactic for attackers to clear cap. simply CAS is too nerfed with long distance to rearm, slow speed of planes and existence of no funnels where you can easily bomb infantry. also caps are too big for small payload that pacific planes are carrying to be effective.
Because it is
It’s a bit of a problem, sure. The Hei is still better than the Carbine at the same level. The Type 99 being the same level as the Garand and the Otsu being just, not better in any real way. Could have gone with the Type 4 Garand and Type Ko Pedersen instead.
and it was totally irrelevant to the topic of SA progression comparison between factions.
several people on forum have put better balanced progression suggestions for pacific than what devs have made.
Everything you said is either peripheral and largely irrelevant (AT rifles, aircraft gear that aren’t bombs or rockets) or are just completely wrong. The Jap LMGs are all garbage, even with recoil reduction perks. I don’t recall what the upgrade stats were on the first two but I know the Type 96 had no possible recoil reductions from upgrades so the horizontal recoil reduction was as good as it was going to get. They don’t even come close to competing with BARs. The SMGs have an awful fire rate and hit like a wet noodle, you have to consistently land headshots with them or you had a TTK approaching a full second. The Type 2a is much better by virtue of having an actually reasonable TTK, but it’s still very mediocre overall.
Having a sword on everyone is great but it doesn’t compensate for how awful everything else is.
Only because you disagree with me, even where the facts back me up, and where the things you’re saying are “peripheral” actually matter.
The only MGs in the pacific that recoil significanlty less are the 1918A2, at 34/15, and the Type 11, at 36/24. None of them get recoil upgrades. The Japanese MGs do have higher horizontal recoil across the board, but not by a huge amount and it’s not an insurmountable problem, and 2/3s of them still get bigger mags and more ammo. That’s not peripheral, or irrelevant, and doesn’t make them “garbage.”
The fire rates for Japanese SMGs are 520/520/550/690, US is 570/430/810/690. The US ones hit harder with slower velocity. TTK isn’t everything, man.
Got a screengrab of your Pacific stats? I don’t wanna tell you it’s a skill issue or git gud, but my numbers just don’t support your point, they point to a close balance with the two sides excelling in different areas.
Enjoy it while it lasts.
Moscow used to be Vz 24 vs Mosin and ZB-26 vs Madsen as well, cool and unique weapons, keeping the campaign slow paced and different from the others.
I predict in ~6 months time the Pacific will be:
76mm long barrel Sherman vs Chi-Nu II/Kai
100 rounds Tommy gun vs lend lease STG-44
Plane with shitton of rockets vs plane with shitton of rockets