You sure about that? Try it on single fire, it should be pin point accurate even at 200 meters - if you manage the bullet drop of course.
Actually, the stats might be misleading - wouldn’t be the first time this happens.
Can somebody confirm this? It would be hilarious if this whole debate would be irrelevant.
they have really armored tanks, very powerful missiles on planes, and a full-fledged self-loading rifle of rifle caliber in leveling up
Isnt that “basically” every faction?
Tank balance has gotten quite good recently.
Well… Soviet IS2 still kinda needs for ever to reload, but well there is always room for improvement.
I dont think anything in this game justifies Soviet body armor, and the one BR that it has the biggest impact is BR2 - specifically because PPS is crazy strong for its BR.
It is true that Soviets lack alot of variety, but you dont need variety when your main fighting weapon is better than what the enemy has to offer.
Keep in mind, MP40 vs PPS is supposed to be balanced in such way that MP40 kills with two shots and PPS kills with 3 shots but in return shoots faster.
Because of body armor both kill in 3 shots, while PPS has the much higher rate of fire - and thus the higher dps.
Does Germany have something in return? Well one could say Germany has a rather great semi auto in BR2 - but its damage does only one hit down against vitality, NOT body armor.
So that leaves us to bolt action rifles and MGs - which to be fair Germany does have great options at BR2, but lets be honest, both those don’t win fights alone, you need a strong frontline.
At BR1 Soviets “somewhat” struggle because PPD is kinda crappy but so are basically all BR1 SMGs, at BR3 Soviets increase of fire power isnt much better than BR2 with the exception of SVT being very good for its BR. But at BR3 Germany has ZK which has very good dps, good enough that it can compete with most other guns at even higher BRs. Heck ZK performs better than BR4 Beretta but that one has at least a bigger mag.
So what I am ultimately saying is that BR placements in general need more polishing, but BR2 combines two issues together: PPS 43 being the best BR2 smg from all nations combined, and Soviet body armor being especially effective in lower BRs against low dps SMGs.
All top loaded SMGs perform very very good specifically as a compromise for their bad sight picture.
I do use OVP sometimes in a desperate attempt in countering PPS 43 - it has a even higher DPS and accuracy that rivals even BR5 smgs, but its small 25 round mag, kinda long reload time and terrible sight picture holds too many downsides to it - not to mention its insanely high rpm even amplifies those issues and basically makes you burn through your ammo.
yes, take it, take the cuirasses, take everything…
You know thats actually a pretty good assesment.
In all seriousness I think the body armour should be removed/given to everybody (obviously DF managed to ruin that as well and only gave it to the japanese as a premium) but anyway
And after that I would love to see the MP-38 and PPS-43 have the stats of the current MP-40 (aka 550-ish fire rate and 7 damage to 2-shot vitality) and the MP-40 and PPS-42 have the stats of (a) current PPS (700-ish rof and 6.7 damage). The 43 has a bit of a exccessive fire rate in my opinion, and again if germany has such a wunderwaffle as well then the allies might suffer but overall thats the way I see it. I know the 42 originally (and historically) had a higher fire rate and the MP-40s had field conversions with a stronger spring that bumped the rof up so that should not be a problem. Overall a realistic and perhaps usable solution.
the damage difference is there to simulate the difference between 9x19mm parabellum and 7.62x25, generally speaking, the larger the first diameter of a bullet, the more likely it is to kill/down someone in one shot.
Considering that
the damage of 9x19 is between 6.6-7.2 for SMGs (Max upgraded, Sten mk.II - MP35/I.) and 5.5 for pistols (walther P38, Luger P08)
the damage of 7.62x25 is between 5.6-6.7 for SMGs (Max upgraded, Obrez ppsh - Pps42) and 5.3 for pistols (TT-33 and Mauser C96 though that was designed for the almost exactly same 7.63x25).
the damage of .45 acp is 8.2 for SMGS (Max upgraded, Thompson M1A1, Grease gun M3A1) and 6.5 for pistols (M1911A1).
The difference between the damage of 7.62 and 9mm is too small to be considered realistic and is just symbolic.
I dont understand why you would complain about something symbolic especially since that average 0.1 damage difference doesnt effect the balance at all. Enemies are 2 shots and 3 with vitality at 10m, except for damage above 7.0 which will 2 shot enemies at 10m with vitality.
Only Mp40 and Mp35/I are effected by this
There is one weird exception to this, the Danuvia 39M which 7.9 damage, though given the difference between other bullets, its actually the only round that scales realistically with the 45. acp.
However the body armour is a 10% different which does make a difference:
rifles with less than 15 damage → 2 shots to down instead of 1
SMG with 7.0-7.2 damage → 3 shots to down instead of 2
Judging by this table, .22LR is more lethal than 7.62x39 from AKM.
completely wrong, 7.62x39 was used once and killed the victim so its 100% lethal.
.22 had a total of 22 cases and only 6 were lethal that is about 27% lethal.
The actual problem with this data is that the number of shoots fired is not indicated, but I could not find a better one at this time.
It’s ironic that I’m not the one complaining about the 10% resistance of the cuirass. But you didn’t get it, I just showed the amount of weapons. Do you want a PPS43 on BR3? Okay, screw it, what do you get instead, emptiness? That’s why I said, take everything, even knives.
There are lies, there are big lies, and then there are statistics.
gotta love how you treat data.
Anyway thanks for pointing out that you meant that Axis have more equipment.
I dont really see how that would be a balance issue especially since multiple guns are copy pasted (MP38 and MP40, Beretta 1918 and OVP 1918 are basically the same) while Mp3008 and FNAB-43 are just weaker versions of Mp40 and M1 Beretta so there is little reason to use those guns other than larping (modders are probably happy to have them though).
But I have to say that this is a fake issue, Japan has the least SMGs on BR2 and yet I dont see people cry about that, but instead they suggest new guns for the tech tree or just accept what they have which is quite good considering that Type2a is the second best BR2 SMG, only surpassed by Pps42.
At least that is my opinion.
But since this is an opinion based argument, I will leave it here, I cant really argue with opinions anyway.
Don’t even bother arguing with this troll. Otherwise he will bring up some completely made up issue that will cause moderators to lock your topic. Personal experience.
I dont mind arguing with him as long as its not about something opinion based since I might learn something new while researching the argued topic.
I wouldnt have found the actual range of Danuvia 39M if not for him bringing up the Soviet evaluation (that was a political copium, but I had to do actual research to prove it).
It’s not about arguing with him.
It is about the fact that it will lead to moderators locking down your topic without bothering to even state reason why.
And then they’ll ignore you in PMs 
That’s why I say it is not worth it.
It affects boredom. It kills variety. It takes away my choice. And it doesn’t make the balance better.
you’re always welcome.
I usually change faction to play other guns, instead of switching to using non-meta or less meta equipment, but that is a fair argument, using the same guns does indeed get boring.
You know that this is not his topic, right? Well, just by the way.
Generally speaking. I couldn’t care less whose topic it is. I’m just warning everyone in advance. That’s all.
