Maybe then devs would finally buff them. And maybe even buff against tanks this time!
But that would require giving them non-historical parameters. Which would be completely contradictory to what the few people advocating for these changes are saying.
Historically, those rifles have been horribly bad. And they were already an outdated concept before WW2.
And either the developers will respect that, or they can just make them fun to play with by respecting the pace and gameplay of Enlisted.
I guess?
But who cares? Certainly not devs. Not the first time, not the last time things donât make sense and are against the ârulesâ.
Btw. I would personally prefer things to have unrealistic parameters.
Devs donât mind it with aircraft, but somehow giving higher penetration values to japanese AT launchers is such a crime that is preferable to give Japanese ofenrohr instead. 
1 Like
Same. âHistoricalâ argument only works between forum users, devs donât give two fucks. So if it benefits the game, why not?
i do 
but i get the point.
itâs not about excitement. but common sense.
the same ones who couldnât bear fanthom APCs in this game because " map too small ".
yet here we are. or⌠medics for that kind.
slippery slope type of argument.
there is always someone somewhere arguing for the crazy ideas.
should we listen to them constantly ? no.
br 1 launcher is a crazy idea. and anyone who suggests it, should feel bad.
it doesnât really matter what i think or a bunch of lunatics thinks.
asking for realism in a game that started that way ( and for some reason occasionally pops up ) should perhaps be of priority.
i mean, the very idea of it as we speak is still present to an extent.
like this S18 anti tank rifle.
but i guess common sense doesnât work on everyone.
Just wait.
I donât think weâll have to wait for long until stuff like sturmpistole or GrB 39 are lowered to BR1.
Gameplay should always be priority.
well, weâll be there to prevent it.
if notâŚ
well, realism is within the gameplay and kinda correlates with it. iâd imagine part of the appeal comes from that. at least it did for me. so i canât say for certain for everyone else.
point is, otherwise we would have HP system for tanks as well, and not just APCs ( still⌠weird how no one talks about them outside how resiliants some of them are )
Well, but we have. It is just more hidden. But individual modules and crew members have their own HP.
Just like AT weapons have damage.
Itâs just a matter of how complex you want the gameplay to be. And how much you want to be inspired by (or reflect) reality.
And I personally donât see any benefit if ATRs could only be used mounted.
ATRs are definitely not a weapon class that needs nerfing. And I fail to see how thatâs going to add to fun factor. (Unless you are some hardcore larper)
And realistically the only way to make up for that nerf is by buffing their parameters to unrealistic values.
So it still wonât be realistic.
DF should learn from RS2 developer. Toggleable bipods and bayonets should be the norm.
Bold of you to assume theyâre deliberate balancing choices rather than yet more proof that the system is broken.
1 Like
Thatâs not what I said.
I said that I wouldnât want to have such a strong prone bonus with no angle restrictions. (Either the bonus would have to be significantly reduced, or the mounting system simply has to be maintained.)
I literally didnât say a word about whether or not the current state of mounting system is for balance reasons. Which of course it isnât. And I even said whatâs the main reason for it to be in such terrible state.
And I would clarify, the fact that the gun just doesnât aim to a certain angle (in the context of horizontal angles) - is a balance reason.
The fact that the game automatically cancels your mounting is not. Neither is how it bugs the vertical angle depending on where you just do the weapon mount.
I think thatâs quite obvious to everyone.
Of course you didnât champ, my bad.
Epic idea +1
2 Likes
i can understand the reasoning behind darkflowâs actions, but AT rifles in enlisted are all awful to use, thereâs no reason to nerf them for the sake of realism when this game now features fighter jet dogfights over stalingrad
2 Likes
This can be interesting, will be forwarded
4 Likes
If its default is folded then my life is yours. Canât stand seeing FG-42 with deployed bipod.
1 Like
Well laying down with an MG and placing a bipod is definitely easier and faster to do in the real world.
Maybe some hypothetical middle ground could be found?
Yeah after realising the nade launcher FGs actually have their bipods folded up made me regret not grinding through that event back in the dayâŚ
Im in love with the look of first pattern FG42, yeah⌠I know it sounds weird for most folks⌠but having the bipod folded up makes the gun 10 times sexier.
1 Like
I dont see why not. I did suggest Bipod be a toggleable state. deploy/undeployed (which you can do at anytimeâŚlegs up, legs down)
Not only fasterâŚyou can deploy it before you need it/are prone⌠âŚready to go when you need itâŚ(I sometimes use a bipod when hunting on foot)
basically what im getting at
3 Likes