The carbines need a recoil reduction. There’s no world in which the .30 Carbine recoils harder than 8mm in the FG42, or .30-06 in the BAR, or (unupgraded) twice as hard as the STG. The M2 isn’t a comparison with the FG42 because damage and range, and it’s not a comparison with the STG because it’s half as controllable.
11 Likes
i would prefer returning the 15% faster firing, and 20% damage increase to the m1 as well as giving it to the m1 grenade thrower and m2 over a recoil reduction which they have done multiple times
I can see the increased RoF for the M1, M2 has auto and doesn’t need it. .30 Carbine should be delivering more energy and therefore doing more damage than the .45 ACP, it’s almost three times as energetic, so I’m down for the damage buff.
Can’t agree on recoil. There’s no explanation that justifies the .30 caliber carbines recoiling harder than the 8mm Kurz MP43, especially not by double.
2 Likes
i wouldn’t mind having a new recoil reduction just that i would prefer giving the semi automatic upgrades to it
Por que no los dos?
sure, that would be the most ideal buff
the springfield recoil doesn’t matter because bolt action
Caliber is not always the only measure of recoil. Design and weight greatly affect this. As far as I understand the recoil is due to the low weight of the rifles, which cannot compensate for the recoil
1 Like
i kno but the bar is heavier than fg42 but has more recoil
The recoil is no greater than that of fg. 34 (BAR) versus 47(FG). The horizontal differs similarly in favor of the BAR.
The logic of the game works in this direction quite clearly.
The sights are just garbage. I don’t really think the recoil is bad, it’s just having your eyeball 2cm from the ghostring is.
2 Likes
You’re right, the low weight would be a problem, if it wasn’t also a lightweight projectile moving seriously slower than full power rifle cartridges. I’ve owned M1 Carbines, they don’t recoil nearly as badly as they do in the game.
Semi-auto actions do a LOT for recoil management.
IRL The BAR recoils badly. FG42 had a lot of design elements that reduced the recoil impulse and improved controllability.
M1 has no direct counterpart in Axis, because Garand and g43 open at level 7 and m1 at level 5.
It has no counterpart and I see no point in comparing it to Garand and g43, it is an intermediate between the two, which seems to me to be a better starter rifle. Especially at close range.
I’m not comparing it to either of those weapons, though at close range it does have an advantage: ammo capacity. Still takes 2 hits vs one, but they don’t need to balance the carbine against the battle rifles.
They need to balance the carbines against the STG and FG42, and the only reasonable way I see of dong that is by reducing the recoil on the carbines. FG42 already has more recoil than the BAR, and realistically it just shouldn’t, and there’s no reason for the carbines to have twice the recoil of the STG. The physics do not make sense, and it puts the weapons we have as closest equivalents at a serious disadvantage.
1 Like
If fg has a higher recoil than bar, then it turns out to be a mutual balancing assumption.
If fg had less recoil than bar, it wouldn’t make sense, similar to M1/M2 and stg.
The FG having less recoil (rather, being more controllable) than the BAR makes sense for a myriad of reasons I could write an essay on. It’s not a balancing factor between those two weapons, because BAR is considered an LMG for the gunner class, and FG is a troops weapon for some unknowable, nonsense reason. This isn’t an FG balance post though, so I won’t get into all that.
I just don’t think that sides should have mass-produced weapons better than the enemy’s brand name weapons
Fg<Bar, because fg can be given to more soldiers
M2<Mp43, because m2 is available to more soldiers.
M1 carbine is available at level 5, don’t expect too much from it, it shouldn’t be that way.
There is progression in this game.