That is true, despite multiple suggestions about both of those issues, but the thing is they are just lazy.
Plus some things just can’t be changed because the game is based on history (or at least they claim it is) - there is nothing you can do about the PPSh-41, it just was that good in real life and, being an SMG, you can’t balance it by moving it to different class than the assaulter.
You can change some things however. For example availability of SF weapons.
Germans dont lose because they play objective most of time. Soviets are all either Vasily Zaitsev or bots. Bots get destroyed and Vasilis are useless as they are never in place that is needed. They never play objective and they just camp. I today just played Soviets and i would have even win against MKBs and such stuff, but one player cant hold objective against 4 real players.
Ps. I even have better KD as Soviets, still wont win a match.
4 Likes
KP/-31 ?
OK, I’ll try to be more precise again, I mean nothing historically accurate.
Don’t get mad, but no one cares about historical accuracy. Not even the developers. Zh-29 or T-50, 39M, MKBH42? And then we’re just talking about that one campaign. It would have to be decided that then there could only be historically authentic tools now, and a lot of things could go in the trash, or there could be things that weren’t there, but could have been. It seems to me that developers are leaning towards the latter. Then, on the other hand, it would have been possible to find a suitable opponent for every weapon.
Nah, too restricting.
You might as well just remove them from the game at that point.
Was it ? Well I guess its just western propaganda that such simple task as magazinewell was too hard task for soviet industry and therefor ppsh magazines hardly ever were interchangeable.
Also quite many otherthings but il take your word for it, lets say it was such lazorbeam irl as its ingame.
So how come Mkb42 should be any different ? Quite sure it was rather excellent weapon system as technically every country in world these days uses assault rifle.
What stops us to limit PPSh’s ? Throw it in golden order and it will surely be limited, or limit the amount of assaulters.
Its not like it couldnt be limited.
Well, I think you can do a more less balanced campaign while still keeping it historical or at least without gems like Jumbo in Normandy, Johnson in Tunisia and ZH-29… well, anywhere (maybe besides Moscow, it would be kinda hard to balance it without this gun). I in fact made a whole thread about it relating to the Stalingrad progression (where you kinda predicted that absolutely brilliant Tunisia addition).
Why Mkb42H seem make more problem? Mkb42H it’s good but not god. Red army player base or skill is shit here.
I share your opinion, you could. BUT … you would have to think much more about each step. What I don’t see before or now. Currently, they randomly load guns / tanks (on which they must have worked a lot), which then either improve the balance or make it worse. I see no logic or concept behind it. And worse, no communication. And not just at the campaign levels. I think it’s clear that one of the biggest grunts after Stalingrad was caused by the MP43 nerf. Some like it, but apparently not the majority. Logically, many have put in a lot of time and bronze shit, and then one day they’ll just say it’s going to be shitty from now on. No reason, no explanation. Whether right or wrong. Obviously, you don’t have to explain every little shit, but whatever reaches a critical level should.
The other thing is important to what you say (and I share the opinions of many people with whom we think very differently about mp43 nerf, for example), as long as there is no MM that takes into account who you set up in the battle, you won’t make a balance. Not with historically accurate weapons or anything else. For example, we can argue whether ppsh / fedorov is strong in Berlin or whether it is sufficiently compensated by FG42-2 and Mp43. No matter, it’s good to have a single axis player in one or two battles out of ten who will have one (this is affected by the server, MM and time, of course, but on average this is the case). Or just see Stalingrad, it’s not just the mkbh that’s in trouble, but the fact that Soviet players are barely attacking. They are waiting for a miracle. If they defend, their situation is better and then there is a reality of the mkbh problem … but if it is not mkbh then mp-717 will be the “cause”.
Interestingly enough I only have about 4 or 5 of these rifles in play right now and they are good for mid range engagement but far from game breaking.
Right now my experience against Russia teams is 5 squads opting to snipe and 1 to 2 plus bots defending the point.
Bolts are exceptionally powerful and almost always guaranteed to drop a solider completely in the first hit. So I tend to run a squad with primarily bolts, smg or two depending on composition, and that’s it.
Guns are only as good as the solider behind them. I’ve seen bad players do horrible with good guns and good players absolutely dominate with entry level ones.
I’m maxed on Stalingrad for Axis and I still have 50% of my team with M93s and 1895s.
They are just too powerful to ignore and the maps give great sight likes to objectives.
SMGs then dominate when you close the gap.
Sadly most players opt to blame the tool before anything else. "Its the damn hammers fault that the nail went in crooked, ignore the fact that no one taught me how to woodwork ".
It is quite possibly the most long lived and classic trope in FPS games.
Yet for all the OPness claimed in this game, after I got enough experience I have had little issue overcoming superior forces.
200 battles into Soviets in Berlin? 97.88% win rate.
189 Battles into Allies in Normandy? 92.27% win rate.
There are some weapons that do need tweaks but for opposite reasons. The sights on the M2 are garbage for one.
We nerf one tool, and good players will find another tool. I did.
I used with great success the G43 in Berlin. It was a favorite. It got nerfed and only then did I swap to the vaunted FG42. Interestingly enough though with the weapon upgrades being done via orders I started swapping back since I can make them max level cheaply and they have almost become as effective again.
If they ever revert the nerf ill go back almost exclusively to them.
Well that video is a lot moaning about MKb and honestly im tired, tired of blaming a gun once axis got something good in the east.
Im used to be a moscow main player (got Normandy on max and Tunisia as well before they introduced more lvl’s) BUT hell was it a nightmare to face all day ppsh-41 spam and every soviet seemed to have 3 squads of them in Moscow and you come around and blame axis got a proper gun.
I use that ppsh-41 trophy as well and its not even as good as the “real” ppsh and you obliterate everyone with that even on distance fights.
So what’s the problem? hasn’t anyone noticed that you get a real strong rifle base dmg (12) Automatic AVT-40 to slap everyone?
1 Like
Yes i agree on that, but there’re some weapons that really start to shine after you got a recoil control perk. I was also annoyed by the KV-1 dominance but as it seems we just have to deal with it in some other way and speaking of infantry weapons soviets are defiantly not short on strong guns as well.
1 Like
Its funny, while all the focus is on MKB, Im sitting here on the other side of the fence with my MKB, looking at the soviet weapons and equipment thinking, damn, The damage I could do with those 15 round mag battle rifles/tanks, bombers and Dinner plates!! (DP)
Id happily lose the MKB for a high capacity mag Battle rifle. Give me the 30 Round gewer 43 from berlin XD (Gold weapon)
I have to say, being able to equip MKBs on 2 engineer squads, two sniper squads once maxed, is that not forcing the meta slightly, was Stalingrad full auto or BA in reality?