Future of Pacific war campaign

Mess Room
41

Probably

Unlikely. The Tommy drums, if they were going to be in use with the Marines, would be early in the campaign, soon to be replaced by the 30 round stick we see in the campaign now (Tested and adopted in 1941 to replace the drums and 20rd sticks.)

I can find no reference to Japan ever receiving numbers of STG 44 or similar/earlier designation weapons, and can’t imagine germany would be parting with them by the time Guadalcanal was a concern, they had much bigger issues at home going forward. Also, since the M2 Carbine doesn’t make sense to add to this campaign, having only been adopted the year previous to Japanese surrender, and the Marines not even starting the war with Garands.

Probably plane with many small/few big rockets vs plane with big cannon or bombs. And the rockets are probably preferable, the F6F could could carry 6 HVAR or 2 Tiny Tim, or 1 2000lbs bomb and 2 1000lbs bombs, and the F4U could carry 8 HVARS or the same 4000lbs worth of bombs. None of the Japanese fighters come close to that multirole capability, even their carrier bombers don’t carry that payload, and their attack craft focus more on cannons than bombs.

42

Except they don’t.

Which is why they are bad. You have to pretend they are semi-automatic rifles or be in extreme close ranges to overcome their unwieldiness. I would absolutely take the starter BAR over any LMG the Japs get.

It is for SMGs. The first three Japanese SMGs are absolutely awful with a low rate of fire AND low damage. At least the Reising hits hard.

Based on those stats you should never say that to anyone
Jap Guns Suck

43

Year of production has no bearing on where a weapon will fall in a tech tree. The best iteration of the Beretta was the pre-war productions.

44

devs eventually dont need proof on some weapons being used in certain theaters, good example is as you say m2 carbine, sniper garand, zh-29 in tunis, johnson rifle in tunis fedorov automat in berlin , as44 and stg45 in berlin, charlton lmg in tunis

if they want to find counterweapon then there are no restrictions obviously

45

No individual weapon or vehicle in this game exists in a vaccuum.

You pretty much have to do the same thing with the BAR, or actually switch it to Semi-Auto. 5-10 points difference in horizontal recoil doesn’t make the guns bad, man, just a little harder to shoot accurately at range.

That’s your opinion, and that’s fine.

It’s not, though. If TTK were always the final datapoint that made a gun good or bad, everything that’s not a bolt action would be unusable trash. The reising needs the same two hits to down an enemy, one less to kill through a medpack if both guns are max upgrades.

Your K/D is 1.65/1, which is better than my US (1.29/1) and worse than my Japanese(1.70/1). You have more than four times the number of games I have as the Japanese, and slightly less than four times as many rifle kills, vastly more SMG kills (those guns suck, I thought), about six times as many kills with a plane, just over four times as many with a tank, 12 more artillery kills, I don’t use flamethrowers, less pistol kills, etc. Rock on, your performance is about the same as mine, just WAY more games played, I do have a life, and you haven’t played one single game as the US or used any of the weapons you’re bitching about being better against the Japanese.

I have to admit, this is fair, but I don’t have to like that it’s right, or agree with adding 100rd drums to the campaign. AFAIK, the Allies never used the 100s, just the 50s, and they ditched them for 30rd sticks ASAP.

M2 is misplaced, and not good enough for what it’s supposed to counter (FG42). Sniper garand isn’t good enough to bitch about, honestly, but you’re right that it didn’t serve in numbers in Europe, and not at all in the pacific AFAIK. ZH-29 probably didn’t see large-scale use by the Axis anywhere, at all, and it’s just an excuse to add another SA to their campaigns. Same for the Johnson in Normandy, and the Federov in Berlin is BS but added to counter STG. AS44 and STG45 are premium squads, and I gotta say, if they’re going to add ahistorical nonsense, that’s how I’d like to see it done.

Again, I know you’re right, but I don’t have to like it.

1 Like
46

It does.

TTK is technically very low on bolt action rifles, since they kill with one well placed shot. The Jap SMGs are basically grease-gun tier, so bad you are better off with a Springfield.

And when you equalize the time difference you get 4473.6 kills as Japan, less than half as many as mine.

You should see the stats on a normal campaign.

I’m trying to win, not meme on people.

And well over twice as many kills when accounting for time as a 20% higher win rate. Or in other words, not the same.

Might as well just come out and admit you were wrong.

I’ve picked them up and used them in different campaigns enough to know a BAR they are a lot better than Jap weapons. There is a reason you see people using 20 round mag Thompsons at level 20.

I’m pretty sure they were field trialed but were unfavorable due to weight and and malfunctions in the conditions. I wouldn’t mind seeing it as a Gold Order weapon since they are rarely available in great enough numbers to be significant for balance.

47

Sure bud.

How’s that being calculated? I’d think TTK on bolt guns is near zero because they kill with one shot.

Time isn’t the factor here, the match time varies wildly. Kills/deaths per game is what matters, your average as japan is 78/47, mine is 64/29. 14 more kills, 18 more deaths. You play more aggressively than I do, which helps your winrate probably. I’ll have to try that.

I’m not, but whatever

I could argue with this, but honestly, I don’t care enough, and there’s enough opinion mixed with the facts, and we’re apparently both stubborn enough, that it feels like a pointless endeavor. I also don’t have a clue what the BAR has to do with the Thompson.

you know, I wouldn’t mind it as a gold order either, but I think we agree it shouldn’t be in the tree.

48

I accept your concession.

How’s what being calculated

It is. If you scale up kills by time yours is less than half.

Not when you’re defending, which Japan usually is.

That and I sometimes spawn in a plane and immediately suicide to get back to a squad that I’m leveling.

Sure you aren’t

BARs outclass every Jap LMG massively, as do the Thompsons with the first three Jap SMGs. They along with the ground vehicles are the primary imbalance issues with the campaign.

49

TTK. Is it from mouse click to kill, or what?

I mean, if that’s how you chose to read me being tired of that particular back and forth, that’s your prerogative.

As I already explained, the time per match varies wildly. I could play the same number of games, and have a vastly different time in battle. It’s the number of games that matters, and on average per game, I’m slightly behind on kills and you die more often.

Do we have a way to differentiate those stats? If not, then it’s semantics.

Yeah, I can’t say I don’t think that’s shitty behavior.

I’m really not. I’ve argued my points well, you haven’t disproved any of them, and where things are less clear it’s usually a matter of opinion.

‘Massively’ is a gross overstatement, just by the numbers, but since I’ve already made those arguments, I don’t feel the need to repeat them. Believe what you want, until you’ve got a fair few games as US under your belt, I really don’t care about your opinion or perception of some non-existent mechanical imbalance in the pacific. I win more often as the US, I kill more and die less and earn more XP as the Japanese. You have yet to conclusively demonstrate an imbalance, just a few places where the US has an advantage, but won’t accept the places where they don’t. You’ve won almost 80% of your games as the Japanese, why the hell are you crying about balance?

50

It’s just time to kill. Obviously trigger time is required for a practical balance when engaging larger numbers of enemies but Jap SMGs have such a low TTK you’re better off using an Arisaka to engage a squad up close. They aren’t as bad as the grease gun, but they are really bad. God I hate the grease gun.

I don’t see how that is the case.

You aren’t slightly behind, when scaling up to account for the time difference you have almost 6,000 fewer kills. And deaths really aren’t relevant in a game where players might have a practical purpose for suicide, doubly so in campaigns where you are almost always defending and your deaths are meaningless.

They should come out to be near average.

Go complain to Darkflow about it.

lol

No, it’s not. The BAR is a great weapon. The Japanese LMGs are shit.

I’ve used the weapons enough in campaigns against actually good weapons to know that Japanese weapons are grossly overmatched by them.

I could say the same about the opinion from someone who averages 2/5ths of my kills and loses almost half of their matches.

I have repeatedly, you refuse to acknowledge how superior allied ground vehicles and automatic weapons are.

And that’s saying nothing of the map design, capture rate which had to be changed, or tickets. Most of these maps are balanced as if Japan somehow has an advantage.

Because I’ve played enough to know when one side has better weapons than the other, regardless of whether I’m able to grind a victory out of it. After a point I just left every destruction match on the Pacific because it was functionally unwinnable against a half-competent defending team.

51

But what do you mean and understand when you say time to kill? I’ve understood it to mean the amount of time it will take a weapon to kill an enemy, from first shot to death. If that’s correct, the TTK of a bolt action rifle should be the flight time of the bullet, assuming you hit.

I get it, but ngl I kinda love the grease gun. A lot of the .45ACP SMGs are less controllable than the 9mm or smaller ones, so the low RoF makes it a lot more controllable. Not saying it’s objectively better, just my preference.

Alright, lemme try to explain it better.
Say you play a hundred games, evenly distributed between Invasion, Destruction, and Confrontation. You win >80% of them, because you’re you. Some of them are going to be harder fought, and take longer, some of them are going to be stomps and over quickly. Duration battle-to-battle is highly variable, and there’s no way to both use it as a point of evaluation and control for the variance, so using number of games instead is a more reliable metric.

As I hope I’ve now celarly explained, time isn’t the factor, number of games is. Using that scale, I’m only ~2400 kills behind, and will die 1400 fewer times, yielding a KDR of 1.7. You kill more, I die less, and have a better KDR. Are you still the better player? Sure, won’t argue it. Are we in the same league? Pretty close. Do I have the time to play that you do? Obviously not.

If there are campaigns where you’re almost always defending, and they just changed it so that at least one of the maps in the Pacific wasn’t 100% defense, then you can’t accurately claim it’s a 50-50 split. If ever we get those numbers, I’ll the crow I have to, but until then, I’ll maintain that deaths are a stat worth paying attention to.

I would, if I thought it had a fart in a wind tunnel’s chance of making a difference.

The BAR, in game, is an automatic rifle that’s passing fair as an LMG, and to your view it’s better than the Japanese LMGs, which are all dedicated to that role. Some of this is pure opinion and perception, and where it’s not, the numbers are in my favor as I’ve clearly stated more than once. If they don’t change you’re opinion, so be it.

Perception and opinion.

Not if you do the stats right. I mean, you’re still better, but it’s more like 4/5ths, closer to 3/4ths.

No, you’ve repeatedly expressed your perceptions and opinions, as have I, and neither of us is willing to accept that the numbers favor the other. That doesn’t seem likely to change.

I’ll agree, the maps are a pain in the ass, but they’re only designed for a Japanese advantage if Japan is defending every time.

To what degree though? Where does each side have that advantage, where the disadvantage? None of the other campaigns are perfectly balanced 1 for 1, did you expect the Pacific, where IRL Japan was underequipped, technologically out of date, and poorly supplied in a lot of places to be symmetrical?

This we agree on, though I refuse to leave games which is probably dragging my win rate. I’ve hated destruction since the moment it was introduced, it’s only really fun if you have two full teams of real humans actually trying, otherwise it’s a fucking slog even if you win.

52

Most people don’t use ttk when referring to slow-firing weapons that kill in one hit.

It’s objectively one of the worst weapons in the game. I actually filled my assaulter squad with Springfields when I was leveling Normandy.

That’s exactly why time played overall is the more important metric.

I disagree.

It was you that wanted to use stats as an argument.

No.

Seething.

I forgot they started adjusting it. I reached max like a week ago and took a break because the campaign was so fundamentally imbalanced. Which is why they have made so many adjustments in the short time since it has come out.

Automatic rifles tend to be the most dominant weapons in the game.

The Type 97 is only functional as a shitty FG-42 II or Scoped Gewehr with a 20 round mag and lower magnification optic. The Type 96 and Type 11 function about as well in that role as a Breda or Madsen.

What numbers? You don’t even have the Type 96 unlocked.

It’s objective fact.

I don’t know why you think number of matches is more relevant than time played, 2/5ths. But hey, feel free to come back in 14 hours played and prove me wrong with 8,000 more kills.

At least 90% of my games were defending, if not more. The map balance has a lot of issues, from layout, to number of reinforcements, to time to capture, not including the imbalances with faction armament. The rapid changes they have made is a testament to that imbalance. If they have made significant progress on that front then I would welcome it, but I haven’t experienced the most recent changes for myself yet.

I predicted that Japan would get swords based on that hint about sword range buff being relevant to a future change for everyone. I also questioned how Japan would have anything competitive with the US, or would have other useful gimmicks ala Rising Storm 1 to accommodate for it. What I didn’t expect was that all the weapons would be this bad, if only for the sake of gameplay.

No, I don’t hate destruction on average. I hate it on the ridiculously broken map where all the bots get funneled over narrow bridges and stuck in the water, while the attackers don’t have room to get a rally on one of the first objective islands while the defenders do. And as if none of that was enough, if you by some miracle capture both objectives, your team gets 100 tickets. That is the single most unplayable map this game has ever had.

53

And I like it anyway, but I never said it was good. Just because you don’t like something, or think something is better than something else, doesn’t mean it is, which has been the fundamental point I’m trying to make.

No, it’s exactly why the time played overall hurts your argument. If we played the same number of games, and I had 25% more time in battle than you while maintaining our current ratio, it would be an important stat. In the grab I shared, I’ve got more time as US, Less kils, more deaths, and four more games, but two levels less XP and and higher win rate than as the Japanese. How does that indicate an imbalance?

These differences are what matters

I maintain that no significant armament imbalance exists

And it’s still not fixed.

Eh, fair enough. I think it’s equally bad in Tunisia, where it was introduced, with the long, open sight lines and all the objectives being in tight spaces in between. It’s not as bad in the other campaigns, but I’d still rather play Invasion. Conquest is a joke, but ok if a short, relaxed game is what you want, Confrontation is always either a stomp or a max-time slog, never in between for me, and double-point invasion and destruction depend entirely too much on people I can’t communicate with to coordinate for the win.

54

That’s clearly the case for basically every opinion you’ve ever formed about this game.

The time you are spending in-game and killing is all that is relevant. If anything fewer overall matches would indicate fewer stomps and more kills. But hey, on the bright side I misread my own time played, equalizing yours with mine is actually 6,896.8 kills. So it’s not that much lower.

They are part of the overall balance. Balancing the maps as if Japan was at an advantage when they were at a disadvantage was one part, albeit a big part, of the problem.

You can think what you want, but I would take an unleveled starter BAR with no perks over a max upgrade and perk Type 96/97/11. And I’ll take a Garand over any Jap rifle. And a Thompson over and Jap subgun.

I know, that was what I was arguing.

Not even close.

55

It’s not like Darkflow really cares.
Fedorov was obsolete by the time Moscow happened, yet it’s in Berlin with its Arisaka cartridge.
MKb-42 never existed during Moscow and was not adopted by the time Stalingrad happened.
AS-44 never saw use in WW2.
MG-45 was made in 10 prototypes.
Type Hei was made in ~50 prototypes.
MP-18s in WW2…
etc etc yeah they don’t care

Which is really a shame.

56

what makes you say that ?
at least regarding type 11 ive also seen other guy bitching about it and i dont understand why … type 11 isnt bad at all, it is authentic and somewhat accurate , rof aint problem , nor its recoil while standing or mag capacity of 30 , and abilty to use directly stripper clips is cool as hell, i know its one of those weapon that is supposed to be used by at least two guys but its still better than 20 round lmgs that are supposed to somehow counter BAR that behaves like an assault rifle (with vertical recoil perk) since normandy was released , so the thing that it has sights on other side of gun are little things too

57

Recoil. I had to treat it like a semi-auto rifle at any significant range.

58

its heavy gun so understandable that soldier would struggle with it
and taking into account lmgs behavior in stalingrad its just is what it is :grin:

59

And since when is this a point for Df? At least for this campaign…
Pacific is a collection of multiple smaller campaigns after Guada and even includes squads which only fought in 44 or even 45.

60

I know, but that doesn’t mean I can’t call it as I think it should be.

Obsolete isn’t a word I’d use. Out of service, but re-issued for the Winter War. Was it used in the battle of Moscow? Almost certainly not. Berlin, definitely not. If it’s gotta be somewhere, it should be Moscow, and only Moscow.

I mean, it existed, but wasn’t used. If the Federov is going to be in Moscow, it does need something to balance it out, though. In Stalingrad, if it wasn’t there people would bitch about nothing balancing the AVT-40. Could they just not have put either? Yes.

If they’re going to put ahistorical weird guns in the game, premium squads and gold orders are the way to do it.

Japan never fielded large numbers of semi-auto rifles, and the ones they did have were all low-production protypes, usually copies of American designs. Were they supposed to either leave japan without SAs, or just not put the Garand in the Pacific?

I do generally agree here, though.