well how realistic is it to carry a full standard combat gear set, in addition to a ~25kg weapon + ammo set?
1 Like
this is why weight system is a thing. and at soldiers are slower than the others soldier.
perhaps reduce at rifle ammonution, as seems a bit too much in my opinion. but remove the rifle it’s just a bad idea.
( as most of the soldiers during ww2 didn’t had pistols… so )
Because it doesn’t make sense for someone to carry an antimaterial rifle while dragging a second rifle along with it.
with one exception being… wait for it… AT gunners
1 Like
I´m fairly proud on him heh. Just that name makes him my favourite sniper.
As for two main weapons… Yes, it is abusable, and sometimes dumb, but it should be allowed for certain weapons. For example soviet assaulters can equip both SMG and shotgun, both usable for different situations or emergency weapon. Since shotgunner class was scrapped and soviet SMGs (especially after buffs) easily beat shotgun in terms of universality, there would be no reason at all to equip shotguns in the first place.
1 Like
Why not just build an ammo resupply point? That way you’re not wasting ammo?
That basically invalidated your whole arguement.
The other point is, why does each soldier HAVE to be the one you play as? Got infantry approaching?, swap to a trooper kill them and then swap back to the AT man?
As a re-enactment enthusiast, AT rifles are insanely heavy, there is no realistic way you could carry one, it’s ammo and a rifle, as already mentioned, you’d get a pistol for self defence and maybe an assistant with a rifle.
Same with MG crews, the gun commander would only have a pistol for self defence if the gun was knocked out.
1 Like
As far as I know, it would be. Pistols were often given to people who already had some specialized weapons or limited carrying capacity (For example, Snipers, Tankers, AT personnel, Squad leaders/officers). I’d like you to try and run with a rocket launcher, rockets and an additional gun with ammo for it too. AT personnel are meant to not have to fight against infantry and a pistol or other light weapon (like a SMG or M1 Carbine) is just for emergency situations in close quarters.
I agree that the pistols rn are not nearly as useful as a rifle, and I think they should be buffed, especially the Nagant, but that isn’t a reason to not change anything
1 Like
Due to how the respawn system works, players use AT squads not out of choice but they are forced to. The most important and useful soldier of thr squad is the bomber. You have to keep one alive atleast anticipating an enemy tank. Which means you have to control them(the AI is dumb). You cannot get involved in the fight with pistols unless there is a tank to take down. Which means, unless you have a rifle at the very minimum push into capture zones, you will be sitting ducks for a good amount of time.
Also, don’t forget about the all seeing bots and the small maps. A rifle is important for defending yourself.
I don’t consider the current respawn by any means a bad one. The way it is now, from what I understand, is purely for balancing reasons. It forces players to be tight with their squads of choice. You have to make do with what you have regardless of the game mode. I could bring a mortar squad and they will be completely irrelevant in a conquest mode. That’s a challenge that I enjoy. Same goes for AT squads.
I don’t like it because it forces you to make stupid moves. I have no idea what mode / map I will play so I can’t prepare my squads. And war is all about planning and being prepared (good plan also takes into account improvisation).
Every squad serves a purpose on any stage of any map.
I run AT as my main squad, one of the reasons being that it always helps to be proactive with anti-tank rather than waiting until one starts spawn killing to decide you need AT on the field.
are you all being crazy?
or something?
exept… it preatty much does?
it was because of the weight. which in enlisted it’s a factor too.
but i don’t understand why you should limit to just a pistol. it’s ineffective.
creating more camping? no thanks.
it preatty much doesn’t i’m afraid.
this is actual a fair point. but the main reason why is the bots will just make them selves getting killed. and i can’t be bothered to lose one class role member. which most likely will be fixed, but my proper answer is in the next point:
you limit your ammonution. that’s how. so you can actually move. doesn’t matter if stamina drops to zero almost in no seconds.
y’all be acting like this game is some sort of new simulative arma 3 or some stuff. exept it is not. do i have to mention that we use rally points? we have green sight to see where we should shoot tanks? mortars being able to carry two mortars? perks? do you all forgett which games are you playing?
mentioned above.
and in conclusion, by your logic, the engy and mortars should’t be able to carry any other weapons because they somehow are supposed to use their gadjet/utility tool as weapon as well for infantry.
all of you are talking in a historical way Which enlisted clearly do not follow and i do understand that. but it’s not the same game we are playing. because once again, Simulative it’s one thing, Realistic, its another.
just for another quick mention, some of the german weapons were assigned only to waffen ss elements. have any of you seen one? ( not to mention, only officers were allowed to use submachinegunes along side tank crew members )
And because of the weight it makes no sense to carry the extra rifle.
This would also be removed through this
or we move the engi hammer / radioman radio into the sidearm slot.
Mortars do not need a rifle
But if you do give everyone secondary rifles, why not also give them SMGs or AT secondary rifles at that point? All, or nothing.
1 Like
i don’t care if i move slow than a turtle. i still need to use my fire power.
as a mortar man, if i’m not good, i don’t see why i should suffer like the pilot being able to obtain only points using his primary weapon ( mortar tube it self ) creating even more campers becouse you would just make force them to do so. ( considering the current complains that will be eventually fix the problem of mortars camping on ammo points ) you would not solve the issue in this way.
and if i wanna use it, but i still have to learn, in a proper coombat rather than forsaken training, to make points out of it, a rifle is needed.
could and cannot be a solution at the same time.
meta is a thing. and i think you should know that better than anyone.
this is why giving rifles compared smgs it’s a proper and reasonable solution. compared to the mess you would bring.
Or you just switch soldiers with one of the non-mortarmen in the squad, and use that guy? Idk how carrying a rifle prevents mortar users from spamming. If anything, it will only allow them to get more kills after they’re done spamming mortar shells.
Yet an even more reasonable solution is to just let each class use their specific weapon and balance the classes based on that, instead of requiring you to upgrade more guns and give the SMGs, which are already meta, the most powerful backup, as they need a rifle more than AT gunners need one, as those can make do with the AT rifle itself at long range, and use a pistol at short range.
maybe they will actually use the rifle rather than forcing them to camp in order to use their fire ability.
or mortar spam.
examples?
only for close quarter maps. not long range.
mc-exscuse me?
right… so, it’s best if you leave at gunners forced to use their primary weapons to defend them self and end ammonution against tanks quite quickly.
i have to remember you that only moscow it’s actually duable with a pistol, but even there, good luck on monastery.
considering that battle of tunisia is a thing, i presume boys anti tank will be a thing along side a piat for the british soldiers. so you want to force them using a piat, or boys rifles across sands hoping for them to actually hit anything and cover some ground by force them to get in cover to cover like rats?.
well thought out…
BTW, good luck with revolvers against snipers or general infantry beyond 200/300 meters
First, let me correct the quote.
1: Just because you can’t get kills with it doesn’t mean other people can’t get kills with it.
2: For the people who CAN get kills with it, why would they stop just yeeting people from long range to MAYBE kill a few people with a bolt action rifle? (maybe because they can’t hide in spawn when doing so, unlike when using the mortar)
you have to upgrade the rifles. Simple as that
And >75% of maps are close quarter, and due to random matchmaker, you will be playing >75% of matches on close quarter maps. So >75% of the time you are better off using the close quarter squads.
It’s not like you HAVE to engage someone at long range. Unless they see you and shoot at you, you can just ignore them if you do not wish to waste your precious AT rifle ammo. Or you can just switch to one of the soldiers in your squad with a regular rifle. It will force you to actually choose what weapons your soldiers carry, instead of just dual wielding weapons allowing any one soldier to deal with any situation
Again, a map you rarely get compared to the other maps. You can still compensate for this by putting some long range soldiers in your squad.
Except it is not, at least, not yet. As such, we should not balance stuff with those campaigns in mind, as we have NO CLUE how they will look like. If it turns out that two main weapons is better there, we can always allow them there and not in Moscow.
Of course the current revolver is poorly balanced and needs better stats, and you should never expect to beat a sniper in long range, as that is where they are SUPPOSED to beat everyone (in a fair engagement of equal skill)
because of your beloved first player’s experience?
it’s a bit clustered, so i’m not fully aware of what you are talking here.
based on moscow.
not on the upcoming and confirmed content.
you can’t just think for only one thing, and not the others.
quote on quote, if not everyone, why not just all?
because if you have to compensate, you make it universal. not just situational.
and for the same logic, in normandy, soldiers used panzerfausts/rocket launcher and rifle.
i know that a tank rifle it’s a bit different. but i don’t see much difference.
Based on what we have.
i’ll tell you that.
i think you answered the question your self.
fair engagement.
Mortar squads are unlocked pretty late in the campaign, meaning that there are no new players using it.
If you give every soldier a second rifle, you have to upgrade twice the ammount of rifles as you otherwise would have, worsening the new player experience more than that mortar thing you mentioned.
the conquest maps on Normandy are small. Only D-Day is large, meaning that 2/3rds are close quarters in Normandy. We have yet to see any maps for Tunesia either. So instead of thinking about potential stuff we have no clue will be real or not, thinking about the stuff we DO know makes much more sense.
Yes more universal super soldiers, sure.
No thanks.
Explosive launcher capable to yeet a full squad with a single hit. Indeed, that isnt the same as a single shot, single target rifle.
based on the player’s choice before entering matches.
If you CHOOSE to bring only short range weapons, you should not expect to win at long range combat. This is fair. What is NOT fair is to give the short range classes long range weapons that are powerful enough to compete with snipers directly, at higher levels of skill (not saying more skill than the sniper, just that both sides are skilled enough to not need a scope)
Could you argue on priv plz? I’m not fast enough to delete mails I get because of your conversation.