also happens with other weapons
the mkb42 is ahistorical, it never touched moscow and probably only about 50 units were sent to stalingrad
personally I would like everyone to be limited like in red orchestra 2
only 3 assaults, 2 snipers, 2 gunners
and i wish the avs had more recoil (i like that thing to kick me)
and the t50 should never exist, they should remove the panzer 3 J and the T50, the bt7 and the panzer 3 E should be the best tanks in moscow before going to medium tanks
fedorov need be deleted
although personally I play with about 3 friends and we dominate moscow as the axis
Lv1 T50 (if you dont belive the pz3j can do something)
No Early level smg for counter the ppd
No same level smg for counter the ppsh(if you dont believe a 20rnd beretta is a counter)
No counter aganaist fedorov (the mkb42h is so nerfed that the mg34 have less dispersion qnd recoil)
No counter for the t34
Soviet have so many advantage on ground forces that wen german win is because the other side is under shock for find axis moscow have player
The only clown in this topic is the one wo keep say “we” and “our” talking about soviet union
I think you misunderstood. There is no way I was claiming those two were better than the German MGs back then. I was saying those were pretty much the only two options at the time.
Correction. The MkB was not seen at all. It was in testing and it’s first reported usage on the battlefield was in April, 3 months after the Battle of Moscow’s end in January.
I don’t agree. There should be pros and cons for playing one side or another. Asymmetrical balance is better and more realistic than this copy and paste, mirrored balance.
We need real assymetry, not this half-assed “well this campaign is stronger at level 5 so the other one should be OP at level 8” shit
Example being how when the game was first announced, Normandy was supposed to give the US superior numbers while Germany has the terrain and fortification advantage.
That’s assymetry.
Of course. I feel like (before they started to ruin the campaign with ahistorical nonsense) the Germans in Moscow had an advantage in planes and MGs. The thing is though, that the main thing to get MGs to work, has never worked right for over a year. I would also like to argue that German AT weapons are better, just because I see more deaths to tank caused by things like the GrB rather than the Soviet ones (I could always be wrong and just not good at them though).
Overall, in my opinion, we should all at least come to agree that the MkB and it’s scoped variant is anachronistic. I feel like that’s more important to focus on than looking at the location of where weapons were, or the numbers of weapons remaining. Despite being relatively close to the Battle of Berlin, the AK-47 should not be in it. That is pretty much what the MkB is in Moscow.
Katyn massacre is not genocide ? Massacre that SU never wanted to confess to, yet evidence showed otherwise … And in my opinion we are only about to see results of current events that will come to surface…
Stalins mass murderers of his own personell who had experience in the warfare only because of his paranoia and he wasnt only soviet dictator who did more evil to his own nation than the good
Nkvd butchers did very much, but history is written by those who won the war
Today is bit different, we got science and we can pretty much precisely say what exactly happened few months ago for example
I have always found doctrine-based assymetry neat, but I don’t think it fits as well with weapons as it would with things like unique squad layouts.
I was reading up on some WWII doctrines today and one thing that stood out to me was that Japan used knee mortars on the platoon level while every other country used mortars on the battalion level, so giving Japan slots for mortarmen in every squad would fit that.
Meanwhile Italy had very large squads consisting mostly of riflemen, though later in the war they introduced more SMGs.
You can argue Normandy still has asymmetrical balance and IMO it did a fairly good job of it. The Germans have better weapons at range to keep the enemy away from the point and better tanks to assist in keeping the enemy there for prolonged periods of times, the Allies have better weapons in CQC to help them cap points more effectively, and better CAS options to cover their infantry. Both sides have strengths and weaknesses, and the winner of the game is determined by who makes the most of their advantages and avoids playing into the enemy’s advantages.
As for this idea, it sounds good on paper but immediately falls apart when you try to apply it to the Americans, as their doctrine stresses flexibility with many heavy weapons held in a shared pool that could be deployed with a squad as seen fit, which means a 9 man squad could run the Thompsons issued to the Sargent, the Grease Gun issued to the Corporal, up to 7 BARs, as typically one was issued to each squad in a company with 6 others held in reserve in Company HQ for them to distribute as they saw fit, which yes included giving them all to one squad if they so felt it was necessary. Furthermore, it was not uncommon for American troops to “acquire” weapons of their own volition, and before you say that this was not official doctrine, every other doctrine at the time severely punished their troops for doing this while the Americans turned a blind eye to this provided the supply chain was not severely disrupted, which is how we get things like the Marines turning AN/M2s into stingers. Until you can find a way to balance the US doctrine without being unfaithful to it, this idea needs to sit on the shelf (and let’s not even talk about minimum tank company or aircraft squadron sizes).
Seems like it’s very subjective what you could call being unfaithful to the doctrine as you see it.
While I of course didn’t serve in the 40s, I am prior service and I think I know what you’re talking about by that flexibility.
While squad armaments aren’t entirely rigid today, there still is a baseline of what a “normal” squad looks like before it starts getting modified to suit the mission. I doubt it would have been much different back then.
Soviet forces does NOT need to be nerfed, nor German forces boosted.
That’s correct, you’ve read correctly. Equipment wise is good, since they tweaked some German weaponry (greatly reduced Kiraly recoil), reinstated a NORMAL semi auto rof (making avs not such an op gun anymore, normal semis can compete) and somehow boosted A LOT the pz3L canon strenght.
Doesn’t mean the balance Equipment wise is perfect. But it’s not so bad.
No, what the campaign need is what ALL campaigns need:
drum roll
A basic matchmaker pitting the same amount of humans AND STACKS per team.
Yes there is a baseline of what is considered normal, you won’t see 9 M1919A6s or shotguns, however the issue is that the US has that variety in it’s WW2 Era doctrine, while all the other nations in the war have a much more rigid stricture for their issuing of weapons. The fact that the US even holds BARs back in reserve to give to it’s squads on demand is something no other contemporary army could ever think of. Other examples of this are every Marine rifleman being authorized to use a rifle grenade launcher, Squad leaders and their assistants being offered a whole range of weapons to choose from, including Thompsons, Garands, carbines, etc. Keep in mind these are only the official doctrines, and the US in WW2 (and even into the Cold War) was notorious from deviating from doctrine, especially when it came to issuing weapons.