I think it is important to acknowledge and improve from where the Merge has put the weapons. Before the merge it was important, if not necessary, to nerf certain weapons and buff others to balance the campaign style of play. After all Garands and Kar-98ks are hardly equal in terms of capability.
With the merge having taken effect I think the guns should be re-balanced where all rifles do comparable damage to each other, whether that’s nerfing bolt-actions or buffing semi-auto’s and MG’s. This makes sense because with the merge everyone should be fighting within a BR where they are similarly equipped. TTK and other aspects should get deadlier as they increase in BR, not some sliding scale where as soon as you unlock a better weapon it’s lethality and TTK needs to be nerfed for “Fairness.”
On a similar note MG’s need to be nerfed in terms of their recoil, especially the MG-42/34. Most MG’s were not designed to be shouldered (Except for the BAR, and even then not for long periods.) SMGs should also have their recoil increased for the most part, especially guns like the Thompson. The M3/M3A1 are probably fine as they have a notoriously easy-to-control fire rate.
1 Like
Imo balance between bolt action and semiauto rifles is good. No need to change it.
In terms of MGs, they don’t need a nerf, they need a total overhaul (that will never happen).
4 Likes
Continue reading and I think you’ll understand the complaint.
My point, ultimately, is that you don’t need to "Balance bolts against Semi-Auto’s because the BR system makes it so you unlock semi-auto’s at comparable points.
Dont want things nerfed & in next paragraph you are nerfing things.
And im not even going to bother explain why the probably most unusable weapons MG’s & work in progress bipods definitely dont require any nerfs.
Since I need to spell it out. I am focusing on the gameplay aspects with regard to historical accuracy and fair game mechanics. The prior logic for nerfing the Semi-Auto rifles was that they appeared in campaigns and could ostensibly be found between players who were stuck with Bolt-Action weapons and players who had fully kitted out squads with Grenade-launching Semi-Autos. With the BR system in place, that logic is moot and the Semi-Autos should be buffed to deal the same damage as their bolt-action counterparts, which fire the exact same cartridge. Either give all rifle caliber weapons a base 12 damage or a base 22.1 I am impartial to which decision is made.
As for MG’s, I am again focusing on gameplay with respect to historical realism. The MG34/42 are ~13kg or 26lb. They fire at a respectably nerfed rate of 800 and 900rpm each (Yes the 42 had IRL of 1,200rpb but this nerf was done so players don’t run out of ammo in 15 seconds.) The main issue is that the MG32/42 weighs 3-4x more than a standard rifle and has exponentially higher fire rates. You should not be able to shoulder an MG32/42 and fire accurately. This run-and-gun style also defeats the clearly intended role of MG’s in Enlisted as suppressive weapons designed to deny the enemy team lanes of advance. The only MG in any of the tech trees’ designed IRL to be shouldered is the B.A.R. which was designed as an “Assault Rifle” and not as an LMG. (LMG’s are designed to be transported by one person, it that doesn’t mean it’s designed to be shouldered.) Having LMGs that are being shouldered and fired with near-zero recoil defeats the intended game design and mechanics and turns them into glorified ARs.
To clarify my position, since you read my entire post and couldn’t understand what I meant by “I think the guns should be rebalanced.” The clear intent of my post is that in a BR system, we can get rid of mechanics designed for the benefit of the campaign system and rebalance the game better towards the BR system, rewarding players who advance to higher BR’s with fun guns and also balancing certain mechanics which were poorly designed at the beginning.
1 Like
You, just like I, have a plight that falls on deaf ears. The game operates in a hierarchy that works something like this. The devs direct there attention to what favors the Axis powers winning. There are then no other considerations for what their efforts should be directed to, that’s it. The Axis powers, especially Germany are the sole vice for restriction. If a change might be good for the gameplay and effect all teams but simultaneously adversely affects Germany it is void and not going to occur.
The MG’s in this game operate as SMG’s that can be used at all ranges by the way, there unreasonable and all Axis MG’s obsolete the game for this reason. They are simply all purpose guns with no downsides.
Germans MG has the worst accuracy compared to the rest of the nation as far as I know…
Thompson? Dude the slowest fire rate tompson is 600rpm and .45 ACP ammo is not as controllable as other pistol caliber… I mean compared to MP40 firing at 500rpm with 9mm…
I don’t agree, they have equal long range potential, players just don’t use them right. This is appearing to be one of the consistent problems with how the game creators consider balancing. German players complain something rivals them, the game creators give the German players whatever makes them content. Use the German MG’s with controlled fire and you can shoot people from any range, plus they are unstoppable assault weapons. I don’t agree with using balancing as a form of compensation for a players refusal to improve there own skills.
I don’t know about you’re point concerning SMGs, mostly because they are meaningless in the games current state. You can have an FG-42 or an M2 carbine (which the M2 is far worse than the FG-42) and they function superiorly to any smgs. Why waste you’re efforts using weaponry that serves no purpose. These are the things I think need addressed because they ruin the games potential for any diversity.
In the place of an assaulter for the United states you should have an engineer or MG because they are superior in the sense that they perform multiple roles. Germany differs because the STG 44 is so blatantly overpowered it can’t be rivaled. The only reason people have difficulty is not because it’s worse at a distance but rather it just isn’t wildly unbalanced at a distance.
Wait a second…
First thing first, US has both side of the compass, the BAR which is pretty much a budget AR, and the M1919A6 which is a real MMG with 100rnd belt, not suitable for walking fire but very accurate when you stay stationary or mounted
The German MG in other hand, you have MG13 which is great but doesn’t work like buget AR but more a LMG role, the MG34+ lacks ammo to be MMG and the accuracy and reload time just doesn’t help at all, legit the US MMGs has double the ammo and reload twice as fast? The hell is that logic? That’s why people are using them at close range because you can’t reliable shoot long range with poor accuracy or can sustain fire with the high RoF and short ammo…
FG42 is better than M2? Eh how about no? M2 is better in every way but damage and rear sight, like legit, low recoil, more accurate than FG42, larger magazine, has a bayonet and high RoF which makes it great at CQC, also weight half of a full size FG42. And also has more reserve ammo…
Okay, so this is like war thunder balance is based on ineptitude and the German mains reign supreme to that extent. Let more adjust my statement in a way that is logically comprehensible to no extent of interpretation. The FG-42 is more controllable semi auto and kills in one bullet from further ranges plus boast an unreasonable full auto functionality just in case. You can kill twenty people in one mag from the FG-42, if you do poorly with it than that isn’t an excuse. I don’t believe in compensation for lack of skill but rather balance of weaponry. The M2 requires headshots to reach such an extent, they aren’t even comparable firearms. The Johnson is more suited to rival the FG-42 or the BAR in function, but I don’t agree to the whole notion of everyone including riflemen having a light machine gun as the solution (or battle rifle by todays standards). In a close encounter you should react the same and place you’re one bullet on target well before the rate of fire matters for the M2, if you can’t that’s not a problem of balance. Not to offend.
Regarding the point on MG’s, you’re can’t believe the game operates at ranges for objectives that more accuracy can even be considered ( at least for Normandy). Likely the whole game, people just don’t know what is a long range engagement. Rate of fire is superior and with a squad of potentially six to seven reloading is negligible, you can simply switch units and should. You’re mobility isn’t really all that restricted either if you run the perks you objectively should be using, which most people do.
Yeah agree with the RoF parts, that’s why the PPS42/43s is kicking 4ss in BR2 while the US hust chill fighting low rpm German SMG except the Beretta 1916 which is a memegun
More controllable in semi auto? Dude you know you can also put M2 in semiauto but why would you do that? Yeah people love the FG42 in semi so much that they want it to be automatic by default like AVT40… semiatoguns are not AI friendly btw, that’s why people ask to change it auto by default
I don’t believe M2 Carbines requires much skill to use since the thing is laser accurate but hey, ask the Japs about how they feel fighting US with M2 Carbine, clearly their Type 4 Garand can match that before Merge…
Not exactly sure how M2 with less recoil would be harder to operate on semi rather than FG42 ?
well no, fully upgraded FG42-2 does 14.4 at 10m, so if the enemy is full HP it will down them unless the HP system have recently changed from 10+5 ( Also vitality is quite extensively used in BR5 )
At 100m it does 11.8 dmg again downing.
Which happens rather frequently, sure shot placement matters too.
I believe the M2 has full-auto as well.
Well no, but with same logic you may as well claim you can kill 30 people with M2 all you have to do is aim head, if you cant thats no excuse.
Well no, FG42 functions much more like automatic rifle while M2 is large smg with better range capabilities.
Prob would be more fair comparison to compare to STG44 or Kiraly which is closer to M2 in functionality.
But Stg44 & kiraly is limited to assaulters so, stick to this FG42 / M2 then.
So considering 10+5 is full hp ( Disregarding vitality ) both guns in 10m require 2hits to kill.
M2 has TTK of 0.16s
FG42 has TTK of 0.14s
Obviously, you can argue that FG42 would down you on first hit and its true but since ive got little to none intrest to make more complicated calculations that would include recoil,dispersion,distance,bullet speed and what else, so we will use this primitive ttk.
both guns has so fast TTK in cqc that I can fairly confidentally say that you most likely did not lose for FG42 due to your M2 being inferior.
Infact so fast TTK that not even pro players has such reaction time that you could consider it as factor why you lost to fg42 with m2 in cqc.
But by all means, if this is the deal breaker for you. Im entirely fine to grant m2 that 0.02s so it has same ttk.
No, the M2 is a carbine. It’s right there in the name. It’s not a “large SMG,” it’s a carbine. A full power infantry rifle, SMG, and carbine are all different things.
The M1 and M2 fires thirty carbine. A round that would be more potent than a .357 fired from a rifle. Still not comparable to the FG-42, which by the way damage is king and it’s really controllable they just want to make you think it’s not. Just try not to dispute the german mains, there sensitive about there myths.
Remember, enlisted follows this order of operations: 1.) what favors Germany the most.
1 Like
