Now why would one do that? So that we can use the STG / MP 43 / Mkb as it was historically.
Traditionally it filled the same role as the M2 Carbine did - half assault weapon, half automatic rifle. I feel it should be represented the same as that in game.
Now the only way we can do that is through listing it as a “Volkssturm Rifle”. The only weapon under this classification is the VG 1-5. It can be used on Assaulters, Riflemen, (Pilots?), APC driver - basically anyone who can take an SMG and / or rifle.
This way, I can make historically backed loadouts, reserving the FG 42 for paratrooper regiments (as it should always have been from the start).
While there’s nothing par for par on the Soviet side (there doesn’t have to be), it’s the exact analogue of the M2 Carbine in the Allies tree. I feel it too should also get the same treatment - but I’ll leave that up to the Allies mains to decide whether to make that suggestion or not.
After all, Gaijin is all about historical accuracy - right?
Traditionally, the STG was the analogue to the M2 Carbine. Meaning, we should be able to equip it as a rifle. However, it was also used by assaulters.
Meaning, to fill both uses (as it was historically), we would need to classify it as a “Volkssturm Rifle” so that it can in game be equipped to assaulters and riflemen.
Was it? Do you have any evidence that they were issued noticably differently from SMGs? I mean the Soviets issued their SMGs in very large numbers to the point of having SMGs platoons which were almost entirely equipped with, you guessed it, SMGs but I don’t think it would be very reasonable to make the PPSh-41 equipable by regular riflemen in-game.
So, I think it’s safe to say that it was definitely more likely to see a STG used by the average soldier than an FG 42 ever would be. Some sources even claim 650,000 STG 44s were made, making it essentially more common than the Gewehr 43 and 41 combined. Don’t forget they were only produced for one year, meaning towards the battle of Berlin, we likely did see more STGs than Gewehrs.
My point is it’s more likely to be issued than an FG 42.
Is that good enough for you? We actually have no idea on how they put together squads during WWII. Especially the last 2 years, where everything was a grab what you could.
My point is that it’s very arbitrary to make the STG guns equippable by regular riflemen and that by that logic the other assaulter guns should be too.
Yes, late war German records has proven the intent and implementation of infantry platoons armed armed with all STGs (except for the NCO and the MG gunner, who had a SMG and MG respectively). There’s documentation all the way from the top from the OKH ordering select divisions to be armed fully with these weapons, then later official KStN records directly affirming that by November 1944 many Volksgrenadier divisions (proper army, not related to the Volkssturm) were being fielded with dedicated “Sturmgruppe” or “Assault Group” infantry platoons, who were almost identical to the regular German infantry platoon but without a MG gunner in each one (instead being moved to a dedicated fire group).
I think it would be a neat idea, perhaps as unique event squads dropping 8-man all Assaulter squads for Germany. As @Master_Snail mentioned, this could have been the German answer to the US carbines, but development has instead decided to go for a 1-for-1 balancing strategy where everyone must have a direct equivelant what the other side has, so now everyone has prototype or dreamt up (as in the case of Japan, no source states M2 Carbines were ever modified by Japan) ARs rather than each faction having its own unique identoty (Germany with the only tech tree AR, Soviets with the only tech tree SF rifles, US with the only carbines, etc).
So, my position on the suggestion itself though is:
It’s a neat idea, historicly grounded and I want to see it happen, but due to the structure of the game, I think a unique Event (like Assault Engineers) squad is more likely than directly making them interchangeable. Soviets historicly used SMGs to the same degree so a 8 man SMG armed infantry squad could work as a equivelant (STGs vs PPSh-41 drums, non-removable because we don’t want 8 man SMG squads in BR II).
I mean like since the PPSH is still BR V, we could still make it equippable to rifleman. I don’t think anyone uses it over the Fedorov or AS 44.
That way it’s mostly balanced and historically grounded for all factions. It would make for some interesting gameplay.
Enlisted should always have gone down the assymetrical balance road instead of symmetrical balance. It would’ve differentiated itself better from other fps WWII games.
I think it’s kinda too late to think about that now. The developers set their course for symmetrical balance a long time ago, introducing such non-historical items as: T20, M1944 Hyde, Type Hey Automatic Rifle, Tokyo Arsenal Submachine Gun, Type 100 Double-Barreled Machine Gun, Ho-Ri, Chi-RI 2, Kikka, AS-44, Fyodorov’s Automat, RD-44, AVT-40 with a 20-round magazine, and SU-9. And it is unlikely that they will deviate from the course of symmetrical balance, if only because, alas, most players prefer symmetrical balance. Enlisted is an online game, and a free-to-play one at that, which is very important for such games. And online is very important for such games so developers most often focus on the majority. In general, it turned out to be easier for the majority of players, and for the developers themselves, who don’t have to think about how to create a competent asymmetrical balance (which is very difficult).
The issue here is that the devs never even tried to implement a balanced system. In the old campaign system days, the only thing they had ever done was tweaking some capture speed here and there, which was the farthest thing from asymmetrical balance and the laziest balance measure. The core issues of Moscow, Normandy, Tunisia, Pacific were never addressed in the slightest.
Not true.
The issue is that the design/ system of Enlisted itself does not allow asymmetrical balance as other games do such as RO or RS and maybe HLL as well.
No, stop it, what you’re arguing for is categorical accuracy or doctrinal accuracy, only historical part is applying historical definitions of categories, otherwise, no.
