Historical BR Overhaul

Suggestions
47

I’m the kind of person where for me I enjoy the grind, but it’s basically in the background of my head. Like I care more about the fun I have playing than obsessing over the grind. I play and eventually I unlock something. But I know others mostly just care about the grind itself.

I tend to say that the more important thing is that if someone is playing a WW2 shooter they’re doing it because they love the period, the weaponry, vehicles, etc.

Now I’ve always said that in a combined arms shooter, death is a constant. I’ve never complained once about being killed by this or that. It happens. I don’t think having some particularly “powerful” weapons at early BR would be bad because both teams have assorted weaponry and combat is dynamic, and I find everything compliments each other. Plus I view probability wins in the end, what are the chances you’ll be fighting 100 Stgs or Federovs (I’m exaggerating) at the same time.

Not to mention that the true issues could be more with the gameplay systems itself. For example, I’ve always felt objectives are too small so of coarse it’s easy for a blowout if you’re fighting for just one small building or area, but if objectives were larger than it would be more of a fight and one particular weapon wouldn’t steal the show. Yes the PSSh is great for clearing a building, but it’s not so easy if that’s just one building in the whole sector you’re fighting over.

As I say I view it’s a process and trial and error. I think the devs should at least test different BR configurations

48

I went on a case by case basis. For example yes the SOC was pre war but it did not return to frontline service until 1943. Or how US units didn’t have the M1 Garand in mass until 1942/43.

But like I said that’s the point of it being a rough draft :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

49

most front line army units had garands by 1940 iirc (well before the draft), marines were a bit skeptical and units had preference for a weapon like the rangers loved the springfield over garand

1 Like
50

so even less grind

Quite sure the current BR system is there to keep the game “fun”
As in previous campaign system there was no limitations of anykind and fighting the ppsh, fg42 or what else high tier gun with starter weapons exactly wasnt fun.

Dont really care, pretty sure people enjoy the quick casual games this game has to offer.

Actually just one squad equipped with stg’s vs starter weapons can make a massive differency in outcome of the game.
Especiatly against players that just joined.
As said, theres reason why such guns are high at BR.

With that 71 round mag and insane rof you can outgun fair share of BA users in mid-range as well.

Well they kind of did if you take moscow as example and it wasnt working.

51

I looked at it more like how the US official offensive combat was in 1942 in North Africa and Guadalcanal in the Pacific, but when Japan invaded the various Pacific holdings in 1941 the majority were Springfields with Garands being less common. And since we don’t have a separate US Pacific faction

52

If you’re referencing the old campaign system I would say that may not be a good arbiter because the whole issue with the campaigns was there was no guarantee you’d be facing a full human team. In fact that was the biggest issue with the campaign system and the player base was split far more than now.

In general that’s one of the great things with the merge era because it at least does a better job of ensuring you have full human teams. Which is why I think it would be different to test an idea like mine with this era of matchmaking.

I’d even say they should make it a public test server to have as many players as possible

53

again with shit idea.

  1. for this idea to work you would need ~5 BR MM queues per nation → game cant even get 3 queues
  2. equipment imbalance amongst nations. e.g. soviets get SVT38, SVT40, AVS36, AVT40, fedorov, ppsh41 drum, t34 and KV1 on BR1, while german gets exactly what? mp40, g41, pz4 with short 75mm? you say not a problem, we can just introduce more guns? what guns exactly would fix this?
  3. your new players argument is stupid, aka just add more MM queues for them. is your goal to turn this game into PvE?
2 Likes
54

And it just happened to be coincidence that moscow where soviets were by far superior to germans, the german side was unpopulated ?
Same in tunisia
Same in berlin

It was pretty much same thing in each campaign where the opposite had by far better equipment.
And before you mention but but mkb will balance federov, maybe most likely not.
then again it would be complete newcomers fighting against weapons that are currently BR5 for obvious reason.

No need to test, we already know that campaigns that had OP weapons compared to enemy were unpopulated.

You can do in customs what ever you want.

55

I wholeheartedly agree with the general idea of putting more WW2 into this “WW2” game.

Especially since after the Merge we have seen pretty much exclusively movement towards fantasy and away from WW2:
Tokyo Arsenal, Honi, T-34-100, Stalingrad on high BR, Pershing in Pacific, etc.

But that means Madsen and T-28 in Berlin which doesn’t make any historical sense?

Personally I am still sad about how that short test server ended where they tried “the letters”, when each campaign/set of maps had a link to a weapon.

Idk what they were expecting (maybe even exactly the reaction that history = bad) but obviously if you put Stewart (Normandy) vs Tiger (Normandy) or PPSh-41 (Berlin) vs MP-3008 (Berlin), no one is gonna like that.

I really wish for BR System 2.0 where weapons are tweaked and balanced with a factor of “when and where it should appear” – e.g. yellow Italian tanquettes should not appear in Ardennes and seaplanes with LVT should not constantly end up in Tunisia.
And obviously Stalingrad shouldn’t be on high BR.

2 Likes
56

First I would say that there is nothing wrong with asymmetrical balance. The Soviets have good SMGs, the Germans have good MGs. And as I had in the list the Germans have a variety of SMGs for BR 1

And I say the degree in which you encounter any one thing in particular are not definite. What are the chances every single enemy team you encounter is going to have 100% SVTs and PPSh.

Second is that I find everything gets put to the test in the beautiful chaos of battle. Like a few days ago my M1 Carbine squad wiped a whole squad armed with Type Heis. I won that engagement. Maybe some other time the other guy wins the engagement. It’s like a game of chess, both teams have all their pieces and do what they can.

The Panzer 3J and it’s brothers can take on the T-34. Of coarse you may use the front pen argument but that is not the end all be all.

Not to mention your teams planes may also be able to deal with these threats

Plus disabling a tank is just as vital as destroying it. Taking out his tracks or damaging it somewhere usually makes the tanker panic to get out and repair, thus making him an easy target. The tank is taken out one way or the other

And you know the best answer to fighting enemy vehicle is simply, BUILD AN AT GUN. If more people actually bothered to use the tools the devs have given us there would be no problems, why else is that a feature in this game. And I will say that I said and have said in the past they should add Flak Cannons as an Engineer construct that act as the ultimate weapon against any armor.

Also as stated there are various things that can be added that flesh out the arsenal. Sd. Kfz. 6/3, Sd Kfz. 8 with 8,8 Flak

But even then asymmetry comes back into play in that the Soviets may have powerful tanks but the Germans can and should build AT guns.

And as I’ve always said no matter what the vehicle is they should do their job. Say it’s an early BR match and the enemy is a KV and I’m a Panzer 2. Obviously I will not engage the KV, I’m just going to do my particular job of spamming the enemy infantry.

57

I have thought of the absurdity of particularly early war things appearing late, but at the same time we can’t just not have the Mosin 91/30 in every single battle because it happens to share the same BR.

All I can say is hey if it was in 1941 that doesn’t mean some Soviet didn’t bother dragging his favorite Madsen throughout the years. Even now there is relative variety in matches

Back then I was peeveed about LVTs in Hurtgen Forest or marine planes over Normandy, but I’ve learned to settle and am fine with it. Hey we’re playing as America with American things :man_shrugging:

58

lol. then go play germans on BR5 with only mg34 and g41 if you believe in asymmetrical balance. tell me if you enjoy it.

cool story. btw i managed to kill 20+ enemies with one HE shot of tiger 2. also i managed to kill ~2 squads with one drum of shpitalny.

but it is majority of argument. just flank it is a meme.

i vehemently disagree with this argument. if tank can shoot, he is still deadly threat. pixel shots to disable turret vs OHK is stupid argument.

if only AT guns were effective at every BR tier for every nation…
image

cool story. lets say that you are actually taking pz2 (which i seriously doubt) and that you have perfect situational awareness of knowing at all times where that KV1 is located(doubt), can you tell me how many other people taking low BR tanks have same situational awareness? or even knowledge that they cant go against KV1 with pz2?

overall this is completely unrealistic suggestion.

2 Likes
59

I don’t deny that true flanking isn’t possible, but I find sometimes the opportunity does arise. In my experience most vehicles will be moving about that an opportunity arises. I couldn’t tell you how many vehicles I’ve seen basically on top of the objective. Or usually they’re not far out of reach

Plus sometimes the game itself may need to change. People have long complained about the gray zone. Me I have suggested that we should have the whole map opened up in a giant battle. That way you would have a true open fluid combat.

Or how I just think objectives are too small and should be bigger

You may disagree but disabling is a good strategy as much as killing it. Disable it, if it’s a serious threat, move away from it, if he’s disabled he’s a sitting duck for everything else, or if he’s disabled he’s risking getting killed if he tries to repair. This is kind of why I disagree with the new internal repair mechanic.

But the Pak 40 can damage the KV? I know you’re gonna say but the front, but the point is an AT gun can still do it’s job. Don’t act like it’s not possible

Sometimes it’s as simple as waiting for the tank to move, turn, or you moving to a good spot to build.

Plus like I said they should add Flak Cannons as the ultimate AT weapon. They’d cost most if not all your points but the crew would be completely exposed. Very strong, very vulnerable

I play whatever I want as I feel like it. I’ve said this game is the WW2 shooter I’ve always wanted and I enjoy playing as any and everything. As I said earlier in the topic I think if someone’s playing a game such as a WW2 shooter it’s because they love the setting, weapons, vehicles, etc. On a whim I’ll play Panzer 2 just as much as I’d choose to play a Panther as a KV to a T-70. Like I’ve said I feel all that matters is the vehicle player does whatever he can

I mean that’s the point. Maybe the KV surprises me or I am not aware of the presence of one. Or maybe he gets me if I’m distracted.

And there is no guarantee there is going to be a KV at all times, even more than one at the same time. That’s the point of there being vehicle slots and everyone’s fighting for the spot. Even in my experience I don’t think I’ve ever seen 2 of the same vehicle at the same time.

Like I said it’s like chess or whatever. Even if I’m a Panzer 2 it’s my teams AT’s job to also help fight vehicles even if that means building an AT gun, or our planes, etc

That has more to do with personal skill and knowledge. I’ll say they’ll certainly learn soon enough. But hey not everyone is going to be a tank ace. I always say everyone should just roll with the punches

60

Honestly I would just introduce a class “bolt action rifles” or “standard issue rifles” like Mosin or Kar98k, which would be free of BRs like pistols.
Maybe even Garand.

61

As in ken, was that a mistake meaning to be Type “Gen”?

62

Also one more piece of advice to this system to work. Make it only into three queues. 1-2, 3-4 and 5 and make 1-2 ‘41-‘42. 3-4 as ‘43 to ‘44 and then 5 as 45. Then youll have less division but still keep the game fitting as far as the settings of the maps and weapons go

63

I’ve been thinking. I’ve felt that the most intense, competitive, full matches I ever have are at BR 5. Constant vehicles, planes, it’s only time I’ve ever seen people actually bothering to build AT and AA guns. It’s like it’s almost this game at its fullest combat potential……for better or worse.

While the earlier BR matches are no where near the level of intensity

In a way my suggestion aims to bring that BR 5 intensity to the whole game. It would increase the pool of players available at any and every BR while ensuring every battle will be intense

64

Another of my historical ideas would basically be an adaption of the 1-2-3, 3-4-5 matchmaking we have now. It’s also similar to GENxCatrenko’s idea.

BR 1 and 2 would be particularly early war things, BR 4 and 5 would be particularly late war things, it would still be based on year like my idea now, but BR 3 would be common things that were used all throughout the war. It’s like a compromise

If anything it’s not even that drastic of a change, a few things would just have to be moved here and there in BR. It would still try to keep as many human players together, that’s the whole reason why they made BR 3 the trick card in the first place.

65

I say just keep all the weapon br’s your post intended except for the following

  • Avt 40 shouldnt at 1. Instead place it at rather 3 or 4 since it wasnt really produced until late 1942 and wasnt used until 1943.

  • type hei auto rifle shouldnt be at 1 but instead rather 4 or 5

  • put the fedorov at rather 2 or 3 that way it can fight in the earlier war battles but would have to fight against the mkb.

  • mp43 and fg42 at 4

And as well as the queue system goes

-Just make it rather 1-2(‘41-‘42) 3-4 (‘43-‘44) and then 5 (‘45)

-Or 1 by itself being (‘41-‘42) 2-3 (‘42-late ‘43) and then 4-5 being broadly late war being from 44-45. Yes vulkssturm guns will be in a slightly inaccurate time but will still only see battles where Germany are getting pushed back as are getting desperate to where they start relying on cheaper ways to make weapons and are making them with the simple but less efficient, cheap factory irons.

66

Agreed. Also if the devs hopefully test this out. Rather as a separate game mode (best case scenario bc then we’ll all be happy as there’s normal enlisted and then timeframe mode) or overhaul the game in general. Then we could notice more players in the earlier battles actually using the map and building AT cannons in more innovative positions.

Overall I like this system you suggested despite the little mistakes as far as some weapon BR’s go. But no need to worry about those as you know, I got your back and will give any constructive criticism as I try to help :wink: