Yeah, revolvers feel wimpy in Enlisted. Combined with the fact that all handguns in this game are fired with a two-handed grip, which is anachronistic. Only adds to the annoyance of shooting a revolver and feeling like shooting phoney darts.
3 Likes
Not entirely correct. Itâs really only the American revolvers that commonly used speedloaders. Neither the Webley nor the Enfield revolvers (at the time!) had standard-issue speedloadersâcertainly not ones in common use.
This also misses the broader point: most soldiers in the field carried loose ammo, not clips or speedloaders. That was the norm, not the exception.
Theyâre notâŚ?
You do realize double-action is a specific mechanical term, right? It describes how a firearm operatesâspecifically that pulling the trigger both cocks and fires the gunânot just how fast you can shoot. Saying theyâre already âcapableâ of double action doesnât mean much if the in-game animation and fire rate donât reflect that function.
That doesnât really belong in a WWII game, does it?
This is post-war logic applied to a historical setting. The reason semi-autos are dominant in-game isnât due to inherent superiority of the designâitâs because the gameâs mechanics currently favor high volume of fire, magazine size and fire-rate is what makes a pistol great in this game, and that shouldnât be the only two major factors.
In real life, getting hit by any bullet is going to ruin your day. The damage system in Enlisted is already heavily abstracted. If revolvers dealt something like 9 damage per shot, theyâd at least be able to reliably double-tap enemiesâand finally serve a meaningful gameplay role.
Youâre missing the core reason they stuck around for so long: reliability.
A pistol that doesnât go bang when you need it to is worse than useless. Thatâs why so many soldiersâand even some modern professionalsâpreferred revolvers. But reliability isnât a mechanic in this game, so revolvers need something else to make them viable. Otherwise, Enlisted fails to represent WWII fairly, and thatâs kind of the whole point, isnât it?
Revolvers need the attention, yours would not help.
1 Like
I figure they should be the âbolt actionsâ of side arms
3 Likes
I remember this one! I fully endorse this suggestion!
The same way Bolt-Actions deal double the damage of semi-autos for fair representation, the same should be true for Revolvers vs Automatics!
2 Likes
Sidearms werenât standard issue, usually they were issued to officers it wouldnât be a leap in logic to assume a officer might buy a speed loader.
Enlisted has veered away from the norm a while ago, for example every soilder can cycle a bolt action at the fastest possible speed (usually itâd take a exceptional shooter to be able to do this), USA and Jap squads can use the panzershrek even if either of these forces had access to these weapons they certainly werenât the norm. But enlisted putting these weapons in the tech tree would give that impression. Of all the a-historic details speed loaders would be the least offensive.
Is it really thought? In ww1 the benefits of self loading pistols were apparent, hence the adoption of semi autos as standard by most armies by ww2.
You mean a aspect of guns that isnât represented in enlisted? Of course Iâm ignoring it because it ISNT REPRESENTED IN ENLISTED. This is the Enlisted forum not a gun forum this argument can stay there
Revolvers never will be as good as semi autos in a game that doesnât simulate reliability, revolver never will be as good as semi autos that fire the same cartridge in Enlisted because their main benefit is null in Enlisted.
Revolvers will never be equal with semi autos but at least my suggestions will close that gap by a little bit.
Still does not mean they existed.
False equievelences, many weapons in this game are only loaded from clips even though they have detatchable magazines. Compare like to like.
You mean the US and Germany, famous for constantly pushing military technologies at the time? Itâs really not as common as you think, they co-existed, this is the truth on the ground.
I meantioned that, read what I wrote. What a dishonest response.
Thatâs my point, itâs almost like youâre ignoring the only buff that would make them viable?
Not with your attitude they wonât be.
Itâs not like I donât want the US revovlers to recieve their half-moon clips, or gun mechanics (double vs single action) being accuretly represented in the game. They just wonât fix the overall issue, that revovlers are as of right now not worth using.
1 Like
Yes, youâre right, this is a gaming forum! So letâs take an example from other games. In most games like CoD, CS and etc, revolvers deal much more damage than semi automatic pistols, so why not do that?
1 Like
YES PLEASE! I suggested this before on reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/enlistedgame/comments/1iul28p/should_revolvers_be_buffed/
2 Likes
These weapons are like this in order to be at a lower br therefore those guns should be loaded via clips to be at a lower br, but as revolvers donât have a br thereâs no reason to not give them the best possible reload time.
Iâm pretty sure the webly had speed loader during ww2 as for the other uk revolver your correct.
According to wikipedia 356000 colt new serviceâs were used by the USA in ww2 and 1.9 milliion m1911 were built between 1937-1945 for the US government. Even if the s and w had 1 million built the m1911 would still be more common (also the USA army clearly did see the advantages after adopting the m1911 before ww2)
Being dishonest was not my intention and Iâm sorry if I came if that way.
And what would that be? Increasing damage?
The fact is revolvers will struggle in Enlisted because enlisted is in a limbo between revolvers benefit of reliability not being able to shine and all guns that shoot the same calibre doing the same damage (with a few exceptions).
Unfortunately revolvers are only really useful as a cheap sidearm for poorer plays.
1 Like
Enlisted is not CoD, in fact when enlisted released itâs branding was that it wasnât a âunrealistic shooterâ (obviously now itâs not so much the case). But how revolvers are presented in those games is silly. For example a 45acp fired out a m1911 does less damage than one fired out a revolver despite being the same cartridge. Enlisted however has more consistency most .45 guns do the same damage.
Artificially increasing revolvers damage over semis will set a bad precedent.
3 Likes
Thatâs a more fair comparison, I accept it.
Though for the British revolvers, loading them by hand does feel more apt wouldnât you say?
I did some more digging on this, hereâs what I found:
- The Enfield appears to not have had one, youâre correct.
- There was a speedloader being marketed by Prideaux back in 1917 for the Webly, it saw very little use during WW1 and all but disappeared from military use by WW2.
- Post-war we see a comeback for Webly speedloaders, specificly for military use, probably stirred on my competition shooting.
You are entierly correct, and I did however note that both Germany and the US were both very unique in their approach to sidearms (would also like to mention that the US also invented the M1 Carbine specificly to replace the 1911 in most situations, itâs not really relevant just interesting fact that the US didnât trust their sidearms to begin with).
My overall point here was that in almost every other military, autoamtics and revolvers co-existed.
Ah, no sweat then. I thank you for being so clean sir, not many can say the same, lord knows even I have been bad at being gentlemanly on shamefully too many occassions!
Yes, I genuinely do belive this is the only way to go. I beg you to consider it.
Yes, I just wish it could be more, you know? Surely thatâs not a bad desire? I think 9 or 8.5 damage would make revolvers a really interesting move mechanicly, I donât think it would dethrone the semi-automatics (theyâd still shoot faster, and a practiced shot will make better use of popping heads this way).
1 Like
Your right, I canât argue against that.
2 Likes
Thank you for your post.
I strongly agree.
@OggeKing Yeah Id love to use the Webly or Enfield. I actually like the Enfield Mk 2 sights.
But as you say why on earth would you use a useless revolver when you have the Hi Power? (which apparently Australian soldiers did have access to).
Revolvers in game shoot like multi shot flintlock pistols. Bang⌠(go make a cuppa tea) Bang (read the paper) Oh Im dead.
I like the various suggestions here.
@Yamato4299 Yes they should definitely be more accurate. Ive shot a .38 S&W couple times at a range here in Australia and the gun experts said how revolvers are more accurate than automatic pistols.
2 Likes
Regarding the revolver Nagant - this is some kind of idiocy. The vast majority of Nagants in the Red Army were double-action, and single-action Nagants were a real rarity. However, the game only features a rare single-action version, which contradicts logic, balance, history, common sense and the laws of this damn universe.
The most logical option is to simply give Nagants their double action. Also, in order to diversify the arsenal, it is possible to leave the single-action Nagant as a kind of shitty starting pistol for some classes and add a double-action Nagant to the magazine. Although then few people will buy Nagants anyway, because there are TT and Mauser. Perhaps big fans of revolvers will use the new Nagant.
3 Likes
It is possible to forget about it altogether and simply not turn off the aiming state when cocking the trigger on existing revolvers. Then, according to game mechanics, they will not differ in any way from double-action revolvers.
There were also Nagants with an opening drum. I canât say for sure whether they were used by the Red Army.
1 Like
Surprising to see nobody complain about the USSR revolver with full auto fire 
Without ADS. Doubtful.
Tbh it would be useful if it wasnât so hard to use, I usually find myself missing the vast majority of non ads shots.
1 Like