Personally I don’t like this idea. I’m ok if you can pick up a gun during a match and then have two main guns but equipping soldiers with two weapons before battle seems wrong.
I can’t give you any reason, I just don’t like it.
German troops gathering abandoned M1s.
6 Likes
Totally agree. It can get even more absurd when one soldier can equip two machineguns or AT rifles.
4 Likes
Im totally with you!!!
Equipping soldiers (especially assaulters) with 2 weapons is abysmal
Also, AT rifleman already carries a huge and heavy gun but can also carry one other rifle at his back, what is he, the strongest man alive?
1 Like
This mainly buffs assaulters (by giving them a long range weapon) and AT infantry (by giving them a quick response shorter distance weapon)
Ivan Ivanov. The strongest man alive. kek.
100 kg of muscles powered by love to Mother Russia…
…and vodka.
2 Likes
Question number 2 is why would you even want 2
Maybe machine gunners and assaulters want them for ammo reasons, but machine gunners are overloaded as-is, and I don’t think assaulters are bad enough off for ammo that the added weight isn’t a detriment.
I agree bombers should get a sidearm as well instead of a rifle.
Probably worth a different thread, but disposable AT like the panzerfaust would be the exception to the rule, as that’s the whole purpose of it. Of course as it is right now, panzerfaust isn’t actually disposable like it should be.
2 Likes
Maybe change 2nd weapon slot to utility slot? Engineers already have hammer there so why not?
2 Likes
Well an assaulter might want something with a bigger punch than pistol-caliber, for longer range. and AT guys might want something more responsive than a big AT rifle. But the former can be fixed with revolvers, while the latter can be fixed with pistols.
i disagree.
why should i be limited to use my anti material rifle on infantry.
yes, it is fun, and eventually, many people end up shooting at infantry with it.
but, i do not like to be limited on my weaponary. as in the AT case, you need that rifle and every bullet for upcoming tanks and such. but not waste most of my bullets on infantry because otherwise i wouldn’t be able to carry my rifle.
sounds a bit dumb to me.
my answer on my topic is, that i do agree that all class should not have the ability to carry two weapons exept the mortars men, and anti tank personell.
perhaps, this should be fixed by implementing slot only for kits avaiable for “specialist” classes.
Make pistols more readily available, problem solved
So make AT things as utility, same with mortars. But I don’t know if AT riflemans caried also normal guns. Bazooka and panzerschreck operators had guns if I remember corretly.
those weapons are 1/3rd of the weight, and even then I think they generally carried carbines (which are lighter than rifles) or pistols.
1 Like
I checked quickly and it seems that Panzerschreck operator hadn’t got a gun. I don’t know about bazooka operator, it was heavier but US had carabines. I can only guess.
I saw when you refer to carabines, you think about weapons like M1 carbine but I have to correct you there
The only two rifles in this game that are not carbines are Mosin m91/30 and Dragoon.
Every other rifle is carbine:
Kar-98k is short for Karabiner (carbine)
G33 is smaller than Kar
Mosin 1907 has “carabine” in its name
Mosin 1938 also has “carabine” in its name
Carbine is in most cases a shorter version of an already existing gun
Kar-98k is a shorter version of ww1 era rifle Mauser-98
Semi automatic rifles don’t are neither considered carbines or long rifles because these guns use their own unique mechanism
1 Like
I was referring to the AT rifle as a separate matter entirely. The main thing I was looking at was riflemen having absolutely no reason to carry 2 bolt actions.
Also come to think of it, why do radiomen have a weapon-changing perk by default?
Who is trying to quick-draw a radio?
I do give my extra nagant revolvers to them, but it still seems pointless.
1 Like
Well, “carabine” name is complite mess.
You wrote one of definitions, other one is that gun that uses intermediate cartridge is a carabine. And there are probably more deffinitions.
1 Like
Yes, I was referring to M1, M1A1 and M1A2 carbines. Not to the weapon class.
no, as it’s not " historical accurate!!1!! "
and i do not like to swap a rifle for a pistol.
i would like to see you dealing with people at mid/long range with your pistol…
Mid-range is actually doable, though less so with the nagant.
Pistols would make perfect sense for a few classes like AT troops. If the sidearm slot could be pushed further down the tree on other classes, or even restricted to them entirely, it might make up for it a bit.
why should i use a pistol insthead of a rifle.
( not to mention, the current build is not possible to load secondary ammo so… )
but this is a slight problem.
the point is, if i have a weapon and the rights to have one, why shouldn’t i use it.
why do i have to waste precious bullets that might kill tanks, and save potential ticket lives and possibly, time and whole game.
i’m a defender. i wasted all my ammo on infantry because my pistol is not, and will not be good as a rifle.
a tank appeard and i lost the game because of it.
i’m an attacker, and we are at the last point. tanks appear, but we lost because no one had anti tank rifle bullets as tankers learn how to avoid bomb packs.
maybe i’m exagerating. or over racting.
but i find this change a bit stupid and not necessary at all.
people complained about ats being useless. with this changement you will confirm this fact.
people are already avoiding at squads, and this one is just giving a reason on why you should avoid at.
and eventually, make the rifle nerf even against infantry soldiers because more post of like " AT wEapOn 1 ShOt 1 kIlL mE evErYtIMe " will come out.
it’s just an overhall unecessary nerf for the at squad…