Transfer automatic rifles to Machine Gunners and Assaulters

Suggestions
1

Found this post back from '21 while writing a title for this one, so why not revive this discussion now that it plagues all the “campaigns”.

I think everybody should be aware by now what kind of meta is prevalent on High-BR games. A cancerous mess consisting of spamming automatic rifles equipped on every single troop that can equip it because he can’t equip an SMG or an AR (and the only reason why Pacific isn’t affected yet is because all the sweatlords with M2 carbines are now pitted against equally bullshit Krauts).

I personally believe that this kind of gameplay is unhealthy for the future, as it discourages anybody who doesn’t have gamebreaking weapons unlocked right now from attempting to even bother with equipment above BR2 (BR3 in case of Germans due to their overpopulation and Japan because of their restriction to BR4 max at the current moment).

This idea was partially inspired by the fact that Americans have a Johnson LMG in their research tree as an MG instead of an SLR despite being closer in terms of weight and length to other automatic rifles like AVS/AVT/FG42 (5.9kg vs ~4-5) rather than to “true” machine guns (9+ kg).

Instead of making Johnson LMG yet another part of the problem, how about making other automatic rifles restricted only to MGunners and Assaulters (and other classes capable of using ARs)?

List of changes (When I mention BR, I also mean moving the weapon in the research tree as well if possible)

Machine gunners

General changes

  • Changed classification to “Machine Gun”.
  • Changed all affected weapons’ stats accordingly (using Johnson LMG as a template: -25% sprint speed (as opposed to -50+% on “true” machine guns), ~0.4 dispersion, ~10/~25 ADS/hipfire multipliers (compared to 0/~15 for SLRs), ~100 rounds in both magazine and reserve).

AVS-36 (in case of this one I actually have two proposals thanks to the info from Russian Wikipedia):
АВС-36
<…> According to the manual, AVS-36 fire selector was locked using a special key belonging to the squad leader, who could allow some of the soldiers to use automatic fire mode in case of emergency.<…>

  1. Add a special separate semi-auto only version of AVS-36, either replace the existing AVS-36 with this semi-auto only version and add “MG” AVS-36 as a new weapon, or vice versa.
  2. Not add anything new, just change the existing AVS-36 into a machine gun.

“MG” AVS-36 - BR3, “SLR” AVS-36 - BR4 (same as Breda PG (Carcano), I’d like to make it BR3 as well for consistency, but there are enough people in here complaining about Soviet bias already).

FG42 I - moved to BR3(4?)
AVT-40, FG42 II - moved to BR4

BP weapons:
Gorov LMG - moved to BR4
Breda PG (CR) - Moved to BR4 (or 3 considering its primary fire mode?) It might require some further tweaking.
T20E1 - move to BR4? (not sure about this one).

In theory, such a change would allow AVS-36 (and maybe FG42 I, not sure about it) to be used in (potential future) early war maps. AVT-40 and FG42 II would become more mobile counterparts to big magazine machine guns like MG34/42 or DP-27 and will serve essentially the same role as American BARs and Johnson LMG. In case of the Soviets it will also allow to spice up their otherwise lacking machine gun selection. BP weapons had their BRs changed just in case devs would like to separate BR5 from BR3-4 or sth like that.

Assaulters

General changes:

  • Changed classification to “Assault rifle” with necessary adjustments.

Affected weapons:

  • M2 Carbine
  • Gewehr 43 Kurz - move to BR4?

In case of this one, when devs will allow Japanese to (quoting the announcement) “burst into tier 5 battles” while riding a single fucking SPG, BR5 would no longer be a safe haven for Americans to beat up Japs as they please, at least on the infantry level, as these automatic weapons will be restricted in numbers. In case of G43 Kurz, in theory, it would just somewhat reduce the number of automatic weapons in German squads (considering that it’s a BP weapon that was also pulled out of store), forcing the players to choose either … or …, and not both at the same time.

10 Likes
2

They should have created a different class for automatic rifles.
They are all over the place

5 Likes
3

Gaijin kicked an own goal with the FG 42s. They are a paratrooper weapon and should be removed from all non-paratrooper squads. Equally they were not issued to one per man, which is why at best case scanario they could be issued to the Para assaulters as a substitute for the MP40 (4 per squad).

There are probably numerous other weapons that fit this example, but over proliferation of the game with non-sensical weapon combinations has brought about significant balancing headaches where none were really required or necessary. Well particularly if one considers that Enlisted was purported to be a WWII centric game.

5 Likes
4

If the war between the Soviet Union and Japan were to break out, it would solve the current problem. If Japan were to break out of the BR5 and compete with the Soviet Union, it would solve the current problem

5

I think a neat idea is a perk that costs like 8 or so to turn a rifleman into an automatic rifleman.

They get to use FG-42/AVT/AVS/etc etc. Because of the point cost, they can’t get all the recoil perks to minimize recoil. So, it’s a bit of a give and take.

4 Likes
6

There’s gotta be something that sets them apart. As far as I can tell the FG-42 is just a laser beam and the M2 is the same deal. Either that or they just have to embrace their role of being better than any other gun.

7

The Devs should just suck up the pain, swing the nerf bat hard and limit certain weapons significantly. Players will still have full choice as to what to equip their various squad leaders with, but certain weapons should go back to being issued to a specific historical squad which may have been trialing the weapon etc… something akin to what they did for the premium squads… As a player if you want to use that weapon then you need to field the specific unit that would have used that particular weapon, and even then it would be limited to certain roles that would feasibly have a capacity to field test a weapon system.

Unlike WT where you progress through tanks, the progression in Enlisted doesn’t make sense. You will progress through any weapon to land on the meta, all the rest are useless. At least in WT you need options for respawning and different vehicles provide some tactical flexibilty.

That’s not the case with small arms, all they do is go pew pew and kill what’s in front of them in accordance with whatever magical BS mcguffin formula the devs came up with this week. Since using the laws of physics in terms of kj per round based on its physical properties to determine generic damage is too hard.

4 Likes
8

I think this would be an interesting way to visit the progression system.

9

Just limit the number of SF rifles to 2 per rifle squad, and 1 per any other squad type. (Do the same with rifle grenade launchers)

1 Like
10

Sorry to tell you, but the FG42 has worse dispersion than the Ppsh, making its sniper variant annoying to use

11

I made similar topic 3y ago. 60 likes since then though some are “outdated”.

Since devs do listen to our feedback, they decided to give SMGs and ARs to medic and ARs to engineers. Baby steps I guess? Thoug in the oposite direction.

4 Likes
12

It’s funny how some still think that, full auto gameplay is something bad that shouldn’t be in the end game.

Literally, if you think so. This game isn’t made for you in the first place.

13

He could say the same to you actually. IF all you want to do is spam automatics, then BF V has your calling card locked and loaded.

14

Sadly for him, it has been like this for years. Even tho BA lovers still kept complaining. :man_shrugging: (btw. They’re still in minority)

15

well, creating different squad types and limiting weapons to them seems like right thing to do for a game, otherwise just let everybody equip automatic weapons, would you be okay with that? if ANY class were able to equip automatics? we don’t mind automatics on the battlefield especially in end game, that would be absurd, however the excessive accessibility is wrong in my opinion.

also, if somebody would really want they could bring 3x automatic rifle squad for example, but it would be a trade off because they wouldn’t be able to bring something else, which again, trade offs are good for a game too.

especially that automatics are quite powerful here and with my experience in gaming powerful stuff should be limited a bit.

do you understand our point?

3 Likes
16

That’s already a thing. There’s full auto for every class in game in high BRs. And I don’t think that’s something bad, especially since full autos are enjoyed by so mnay people.
If they weren’t so popular and enjoyable, people would not use them in the first place.

Majority of people who are against full autos are those, who don’t want to fight against full autos all the time. They can always play low BRs.

Squads mode should pure unrestricted sand box in the first place.

17

I kinda ment smgs, ars, etc.

my bad sry

18

Guilty as charged :wink:

19

Tbh, there’s no difference. M2c is more smgs than semi rifle, but game considers it semi rifle

20

well I guess some people like that and some don’t, I think enlisted is doomed for people from these two camps to fight each other

we can only hope they will split us some day with different game modes :pray:

because I don’t mind people enjoying the game the way they like

2 Likes