I’m fine with machine guns competing with rifles on long range maps if their ability to clear rooms was reduced. Buff ADS, buff recoil on ALL LMGs. Right now LMGs and SMGs feel very similar and I think it would be good to highlight the differences. It’s an over simplification but I think they are too effective in close quarters while also maintaing long range effectiveness.
MG30 isn’t bad for weight, it’s 20 lbs. I’ve cleared rooms with the M249 and it weighs 17-18 unloaded, 20-22 loaded. It is long af though so again I think adding collision models to weapons would go a long way to stopping a universally effective weapon emerging in meta.
Too many Germans had that plane in their lineup so there was pretty much a constant rotation of suicide rocket attacks wiping 2-3 squads out at a time. I’m fine with keeping CAS powerful but if we do that I think we either need to find a mechanism to discourage such low skill attacks or reduce the overall availability of such powerful weapons.
I think I clocked in with 120 kills that match. It was just jarring to the overall flow of the game to be wiped out at my spawn or traveling to the objective every 5 minutes.
And yeah, they pretty much only were able to push when half our team was killed in rocket attacks.
This is also why I play all sides. It’s much less annoying to be on the otherside of those rocket barrages and if I never played US I probably wouldn’t understand where the complaints were coming from.
Playing all sides helps me not develop an us vs them bias as well. So I’m not sitting here just calling for nerf of the other sides gear constantly while never examining the performance of my own gear.
@70986732 I’m potentially for hard capping vehicle spawns. If tankers and pilots want to not face nerfs to their machines I think making them limited would help emphasize their impact on the battlefield.
The game is indeed a meat grinder, however, there are indeed limit respawns in game. In conquest its a limit of 10 squads. The issue comes down to invasion, where the limit is how many times you can suicide rush forward. However, thats exactly how gaining ground worked in ww2. Waves of men rushing forward trying to clear the beach/ take the town/ etc. Adding a limited respawn that makes people care about their life to invasion would just promote camping and no one would run to capture objectives. Thats the issue with balancing invasion. In my opinion the defenders should have some sort of ticket counter (obviously much higher than the attackers) to force them to play objective and not run out like they often do.
I’d argue if WWII was solely about human wave attacks battle plans would look far more simple.
Carentan lasted arguably from the 9th to the 13th after the last major counter-attack was launched by the Germans and defeated. That’s 4 days straight of maneuvering and fighting. Other towns like Cherbourg lasted longer with some defenders fighting till 1 july.
After WWI there was a great deal of study done on infantry warfare. There’s manuals and doctrinal books for all sides discussing their strategies for being effective.
Obviously, when your timetables for a battle include 50 thousand people sometimes there’s no alternative but to frontally attack a prepared enemy with troops.
I’ve played games with longer respawns or more limited respawning like HLL/ post-scriptum, Arma and I never felt like it totally constricted the flow of the game.
True, driving with an APC can be very climatic and could be even more if you would be able to take some teammates as an infantry support.
But training map, although beautiful, would need some changes to fit into multiplayer gameplay.
To counter that. Each of those arrows is a wave of troops rushing forward. If you read journals of those who fought or articles about the battles, you’ll see these large planned attacks were still just troops moving from point A to point B to point C or failing to make it there. This was especially evident in the battles currently present in game (Normandy and Moscow). With a large number of forces pushing towards a set goal and the opposing forces trying to halt their advance without any gaps in their lines. Yes the troops in real life actually valued their lives unlike players in game because it was real life, but the only way to get that out of players is to limit them to a mere handful of respawns and even still they can just go to the next battle.
To add a bit more to that. 12 hours into D-Day the farthest any of the landing forces at Omaha beach got was half a mile. To do this the allies suffered over 2,000 casualties in that same period for a very precarious position the Germans still could push them back into the sea from. This was purely a push forward to secure an area as currently is in game. However, I don’t think anyone wants to play even a 2 hour match where they have to go slow to take objectives. The other games youve listed are noted for being either mil sims or taking a very realistic stance. Theres no way enlisted will stand out if they try to do what they are doing, probably why the devs have taken it towards a semi-realistic but still generally arcarde playstyle (thats my thoughts why anyways).
Yes, I think what most of us mean by large maps is larger than we have now, but nothing like HLL.
We don’t want passive gameplay with hours of traversing maps just to get to objectives; rather, we simply don’t want cramped up close quarters maps for a combined arms ww2 game.
Normandy is a pretty large map, and I’d say it’s a general improvement over moscow, but it should still be less boxed in by the invisible kill zones.
The next campaign is the perfect opportunity to show that they are listening and have a map much larger than everything they had so far, especially since it’s in the african desert, which was regarded by generals across the world as a tactician’s wet dream that would closely simulate a flat chess board (they they were proven very wrong when they realized there’s no such thing as effective supply chains in the desert; but that won’t affect us since we don’t have to worry about supply chains)
I’d say about, I don’t know, a bit larger than normany at minimum and twice as large as normandy at most, and with no invisible damage walls. Anything in between works fine, give or take; I think this is about the size we’re all asking for.
The problem with Moscow is that the “playable” area is much larger than the actual played area.
Moscow maps are that big, but unlike D day, the edges of the map get ignored because they’re nothing but fields that infantry usually won’t dare to go into.
I’ve found it as a good place to build an AT gun because nobody looks there and you can see lots of tank traffic, but it’s no good for anything else.
