The characteristics of weapons cannot be changed indefinitely, because they are based on real ones. I just don’t understand the logic: "the weapon is good, but there is no ammo.
For some reason rifles have 30-40 rounds and I thought this was due to the fact that these weapons are for classes that are not focused on shooting (engineers, radio operators, grenade throwers). Okay that makes sense. You want to kill, take a specialized class.
However, 120 rounds is as much as a Thompson or mp43 has, while being objectively small (I think 150 is optimal for an assault rifle). I often don’t have enough ammo, and taking a bag for it is too much.
In my opinion, the M1 Thomson is extremely bad in field use, although the panel is relatively good, but its poor sight and recoil action make me extremely sick
And the warhead’s speed is terrible
The MP43 was the opposite, despite a nerf, I could still use it to shoot allied weapons at extremely poor range, the sight and recoil were extremely comfortable and I enjoyed using it very much
But in terms of guns, even if the Allies had the M2 carbine (which, of course, shouldn’t be here), they still couldn’t beat the German guns, like the M38A submachine gun (with extended magazines), which would be an advantage over most allied submachine guns, and I don’t think there’s much to say about machine guns either. The M1919A6 only makes up for the allied weakness in machine guns. As for the M2 carbine you mentioned, have you really used the SIGHT of m2 carbine (of course, I also think fg42/ FG422 has too few bullets, which should be adjusted again), or have you always admitted that it has no sight? When comparing m2 carbine sights in other games, this one is the worst
Also, don’t you notice that everyone else is making fun of other weapons? That’s totally wrong
I don’t agree that the FG42 and M2 carbine should have the same damage, I think it’s a good idea to have different features, but Anton screwed it up, he made the FG42 perfect among other things, but the M2 carbine was ignored
1 Like