I saw a cool gun on the Royal Armouries Youtube channel that I like the look of, and think could work in Enlisted, added as a BR2 Bolt-Action either through an event, battlepass (not that cool to be a battlepass), or just put into the tech tree within a folder under the Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk1.
The Lee-Enfield No.5 Mk1 is a shortened and lightened version of the No.4, intended for use in Jungle fighting in Asia. This made the gun more agile and easier to use in close ranges.
Some key differences include
the (obviously) shorter length of the gun (Which would translate into less damage and muzzle velocity in game)
A different front-sight post, with the guide posts tilted outwards instead of vertical (this would be reflected in the model, and could be more comfortable to shoot with depending on preference
A lightened bolt handle (Which could translate into a slightly faster fire-rate in game)
The barrel has a flash hider (since the shorter length meant powder flashes were visible) which could have some sort of game mechanic similar to suppressors, attracting less attention from AI soldiers (but this is a bit of a stretch)
Anyway, here are my proposals for the weapons stats, in comparison to the full-length rifle we already have in game
First of all, never let it be known that Iām not in favour of new Commonwealth equipment! The Jungle Carbine would be a nice addition to the game (and should be added together with itās unique bayonet as well)!
However, regarding the proposed stats, Iād rather they equalize the stats of the current Enfields instead of arbitrarily making them different for the sake of being different, weapon stats between models of the same weapon should be based on real world differences only. Making one choice objectively better than the others (and thatās what rate-of-fire means for abolt-action rifle inside this game) is not a good thing. Iāve made a suggestion to this effect previously about the current Enfields, and explained my position to a greater degree here:
As for the āJungle Carbineā specificly, I see no reason for the weapon to have higher rate of fire than its siblings, and quite simply the Enfields should all be the same in this department as the changes made over their itterations did not touch the mechanisms for working the bolt, at least not to the degree to warrent a measurable difference in performance in game.
Giving the rifle greater recoil is warrented, so thatās a good catch, the rubber-padded buttstock helps with shooter comfort, but the gun still kicked harder than the previous versions.
One stat that should be considered to be changed from your suggested stats is the dispersion. The Jungle Carbine famously had a wandering zero, and this problem was never truly fixed even in later productions, as the design was inherently flawed. Iād personally suggest a dispersion of something in between 0.11 (0.02 worse than my previously proposed change to the SMLE Mk III, a very generous stat) to 1.14 (making it almost but not quite as inaccurate as the worst BR I rifles in the game), which would more closely represent real life differences.
Those are just my thoughts on the matter, otherwise I of course support itās inclusion in the game!
Im pretty used to it soā¦never really compared it recoil wise. My mate has a MK IV (?). The british version. Havent fired a SMLE MK III since I was a boy, But It was great. We used to hunt in the Ranges with it.
The same gun having different stats is indeed weird, however when it comes to bolt-action rifles its not just the weapon mechanism that affects fire rate but also the size and weight of the gun since a smaller and lighter weapon is easier to handle thus faster to cycle its bolt.
Since Jungle carbine is smaller than other SMLE rifles, it would make sense to have slightly higher rate of fire.
Jungle Carbine is a very interesting weapon, but carbines in general make little sense in Enlisted. They were meant to be lighter and easier to handle than normal rifles, at the expense of higher recoil (less mass => higher recoil, as Newton told us) and less bullet velocity (due to shorter barrel). But in Enlisted all weapons are easy to handle, and weight has no penalty on running, jumping, etc (just talking about rifles, not AT weapons or MGs). They could give carbines smaller aim time and a bit higher ROF than full lenght rifles, but thatās all.
That is true for full-auto weapons, but bolt-actions are manually operated so any improvement that makes the job of the operator easier makes the gun faster to fire.
Carbines like that would be perfect for Enlisted IMO. Itād be nice for variety to have close quarters bolt actions, and given how close quarters much of the fighting is is, I bet that would actually be used a lot.
Speaking of which I do feel like some of the ingame carbines that are straight up worse than the rifle versions in that regard (type 38 carbine, m1907) should have it increased to at least be on par with the longer version. Worse damage is reasonable but the carbine being slower (clunkier?) and straight up worse at close quarters than the rifle is a bizarre choice. I like how itās implemented with the M38 and M44 though - faster firing and faster reload, but slightly weaker.
It might, though that raises the issue of this not necessarily being the rule in game. I again want to stress, fire-rate on bolt-actions is the single most important stat in the game (closely followed by reload-speed), I just donāt want the Jungle Carbine to be the objectively superior choice and replace the No. 4 Mk I, as the latter was still in military use well after the Jungle Carbine was abandoned.
If someone can dig up actual proof that they were noticeably different then Iāll change my mind (all Iāve seen so far points to the opposite), but until then this is all speculation and the game would be better served by equalizing the stats of the Enfields.
I quite like this idea, but I still think we would be better served by the three different Enfields, which vary so little in stats (really, dispersion and recoil should be the only differences,) that picking one is just a flavour choice, whatever firearm you think looks the coolest or best fits a perticular historical loadout youāre making.
This is fair, and itās unfortunate the game does not have itās preffered map system yet. But a map/campaign-skin would remove other weapons entierly, when for example in the pacific all three models (in the last year) co-existed simultaneously, and the No.1 Mk III and No.4 Mk I co-existed in North Africa simultaneously too. So making them all one model, or not letting players control which model their squad is wielding, would be also unfortunate.
I would really like this mechanic. If soldiers have different skins for different theaters of war, then why couldnāt they do the same with weapons? (especially those idiotic sniper rifles in white wraps)
have you used the M38 and M44 much? they fire faster than the long barrel mosins but the slightly lower damage actually does make a noticeable difference. they donāt always kill and down instead on limb hits and at a distance. so if it was very slightly faster but had inconsistent damage it wouldnāt become objectively superior to the No.4 and SMLE
I donāt play the Soviets myself, but you know perfectly well how popular the Winchester M1895 isā¦
However, I can report that (other than in sights) for both the Kar98k vs Mannlicher or Type 38 vs Type 99 debates the one with the higher rate-of-fire wins, hands down. Now maybe this is because I am (at least in my humble opinion) quite good at the game, and sppecificly quite good with bolt-actions, and having a high fire-rate rewards good players who are capable of taking quick follow up shots. The āit potentially doesnāt down people when shooting limbs at a distanceā is not a factor for me because I reliable land body shots. Iām not pro or anything, I reliably meet players who are better than me in the match maker, but for anyone with mediocre or higher skill rate-of-fire is the most important stat for bolt-actions, itās just not a question about it.
Very fair, I guess I just wouldnāt want it for the Enfields? The wraped sniper rifles should perhaps have a wrap dependent on the map, and maybe the Soviets could do without having so many different models of the Mosin (I am not as well versed in Mosins as I am with my British weaponry, maybe they deserve to have radicly different stats, maybe they donāt), and maybe the MP 38 and Mp 40 could be map specific too (there really werenāt much if any of them left in active service by the end of the war, and many of them were updated/refitted during the course of the war, itās entierly fair that there maybe shouldnāt be any in Berlin maps). Map based weapon-skins could be a great way to solve the problem of tech-tree bloat as well.
Itās a good idea really, I just think that it should probably follow the same system as soldiers so you have control over what skin/model of gun you end up having on the map, as again you might for various reasons want to have all three Enfields present on a Pacific map at the same time. But in the end, I do think at least the Enfields deserve different dispersion rates, so them being different weapons makes sense for me.
Well I mean yeah thatās why the winchester is BR2 while the M38 and M44 are BR1ā¦
True bolt-action ācarbineā like G33/40, M38, Type 38 Carbineā¦ have straight up worse damage which make them worse than standard size rifle and they donāt have a particularly better fire rate most of the time.
