cool rant bro
Thank You also Nice post bro 
The Russians will be using PPSH a bunch, the Germans will have their varieties of MGs and STGs, the Americans will have the BAR, M1, and the Thompson. I really don’t see how and bunch of SMGs is worse than a bunch of select fire rifles, and I don’t really see that people will be using just SMGs.
Besides that, the game was much better on it’s historicial accuracy in Moscow before the merge (I didn’t play many other campaigns). We can’t be 100% percent historically accurate, but because this is still a historically BASED game, we shouldn’t be throwing every attempt to make the game based in its historical roots out the window.
It was developed during and tested during
I understand your point but damn we have BARs all along, just tweak it so its comparable with another SF and make the damn T20 GO weapon just like other experimentals
2 Likes
DEPLOYED is the third criteria! IT DOESN’T MATTER IF IT EXISTED DURING THAT TIME IF IT NEVER SAW SERVICE. I could talk about the gliding T-60 the Russians made, that doesn’t mean it was used.
I were to only base new content on if they were developed and tested during that time, it’d be no better than claiming that Abraham Lincoln received a telegram from a samurai, yes they all existed in a very short period of time but no it didn’t happen.
1 Like
Sure but it would be the only high tech weapon they would get no AS-44, no Fedorovs no handheld Maxims or RD-44. Drum PPSh-41 were pretty rare and were malfunctioning way too often
You guys should have joined Wastedwoodsman on his crusade back in the days - todays its too late to think about these drastic game changes.
The game is esentially poor man’s CoD with vehicles, especiqlly at BR5. So unfortulately it will never happen.
1 Like
It is an argument now.
Devs just used it to remove 3 round burst mode from kurtz rifle. 
Apparently HA being an argument or not is now a seasonal occurrence.
5 Likes
if we remove all niche and prototype weapons, devs would need to remove half the game… not to mention effect it would have on faction balance…
2 Likes
I would remove all factions but the Germans. Since they are kinda niche in comparison to Germany.
2 Likes
So how about Avt40? I dont think that gun is equipped in large scale so shall we remove that? How about t20? Then we can have all the yankees playing with their garand. And how about the japanese. You know, most of their guns are prototype. What shall we do with those? Stop player play high tier japanese?
Design =/= Reality.
Also never read that they intended to replace the Mauser outside of propaganda. At best they considered as a “second service rifle” alongside the Mauser.
Sure man.
Unless the German army shrinked to 425k men by 1944 (which would be impressive considering they managed to hold Berlin until Spring 1945), the StG and MP43 never replaced the Mauser 98 as service rifle and only a couple a units could entirely switch to it. Outside of maybe propaganda, the Germans never really considered to entirely replace their service rifle due to simple thibgs like production issues or logistics or the issues Hitler had with the gun resulting in further complications.
1 Like
Well this game is not exactly about 100% historic accuracy when it comes to weapon choice if they make it historically accurate majority if German players will have to use Kar98k. Back in the days Red Orchestra 2 had MKB 42(H) but good luck getting it there was very limited spots in a match for MG 42 and MKB 42 most of the times you had to play Kar98k or G41 and in Rising Storm also you had mostly Arisaka Type 99 vs M1 Garand
That would require the BAR to function like an LMG, which it doesn’t, or for the machine gunner themselves to have a unique class ability, which they dont… the squad engineer does. The BAR functions like an assault rifle. “Machine gunner” implies someone who can do LMG stuff, like suppression through volume of fire, which isn’t possible with a 20 round magazine and a 600+ RPM ROF.
The definition and role of “machine gunner” has changed drastically over the last 100+ years of automatic weapons use on the battlefield. As automatic weapons became more reliable and cheaper to manufacture they began appearing in the hands of more and more soldiers who weren’t necessarily “machine gunners.” By that point, however, LMG’s had evolved into their own niche. The niche of squad firepower overmatch. The force multiplier. Set it up, let er rip, mow em down. Whatever doesn’t drop dead drops its will to fire back.
The BAR is a weapon from before that evolution, a weapon from when “machine gunner” was just a guy with an automatic rifle. (Simply having a full caliber cartridge in a shoulder fired platform that could run reliably was considered enough of a force multiplier at the time.)
As long as the T20 and T20E1 are available for the rifleman class then the “machine gunner” class is and will continue to be entirely redundant – unless you grind out the Browning M1919A6, which is the only gun that sets the rifleman and machine gunner classes apart (besides event weapons like the Stinger) and really the only gun worthy of the machine gunner class on the U.S. tech tree.
*M2 Carbine fires an intermediate cartridge, with a considerably lower range and damage output, which is why it does not encroach on the already nearly useless machine gunners. It is perfectly fine right where it is at.
That’s obvious BS. There’s plenty pre war MGs that had similar rof and 20-30 mags.
It’s not like BAR is some ultra unique ancient weapon from more civilized age.
Yes, if you are gonna keep comparing BR3 MGs with BR5 SF rifles. 
So the Brent ZB, MG13 or Breda are also automatic rifles by this definition of rof and mag size?
2 Likes
Talking about “balance” even BR5 matches could have Kar98 and MP40s if squad composition would get touched.
In the end, those Uber guns like FG42 and T20 could move into a special “commando” class of squad - which would be a super small squad of just 4 or 5 special soldiers - but equipped with the best weapons. Also asymmetrical balance could always be advanced even further, but as many here state quite often, too drastic changes are indeed risky.
2 Likes