In the current weapon balance, select-fire weapons dominate the field, leaving most other weapons in the shadows.
Some of the campaign unlocks and premium squads look less appealing when they are outperformed so much by the FG-42, AVS, etc.
Bolt-action rifles in particular struggle to find a place to shine. Compared to semi-autos, they perform better at long range but are greatly outclassed in close quarters. They don’t perform that much better at medium/long distance however. Often, a shot from even a fully upgraded bolt-action will only down a soldier, just as a semi-auto would. I think a buff to bolt-action rifle damage, such that upgraded rifles will outright kill a soldier (even with +35% vitality) within around 30 meters will make them much more viable.
Having more soldiers using the main rifles of the war will also help the historical aspect of the game, which I believe is something that draws people to Enlisted.
I think that sometimes the demands of players are very contradictory.
Some players want to restore the history and make the bolt-action rifle shine, But other players don’t want their hard-grinding weapons to be restricted.
So what we got? The patches changing the performance data of the weapon for what so-called balance, for what so-called history. Then are these goals really achieved?
By making the bolt-action rifle glow in this way, will the game become more fun?
Why was the bolt-action rifle equipped on a large scale in World War II? Could it be that they really have such a performance advantage?
Looking at such suggestions one after another, Here I introduce my suggestion
Because they where left over from 1st world war?, lol
With nations like France and Russia planning on switching to semi automatics with the mas-36 being a stop gap
The US had the M1G as their standard rifle during pretty much the whole war.
While the Soviets where in the process of replacing all Mosin nagants for SVTs, when Germany invaded forcing them back in to mass production of Mosin nagant rifles.
The German would be the ones that took longer than the other factions to adapt a self loading rifle. Even tho they ended up using a good quantity of SVTs that they captured during the early days of operation Barbarossa
So as to force everyone in to bolt action rifles, It would be ahistorical. And do far most people tend to use Bolt action rifles. Except some high level players. Which is kind of how things should be. Except for US as they should use more M1G than bolt action rifles.
the last time they try to make BA rifle more appealing is by screwing the semi auto…
and M1C for backline soldiers and paratroopers
That would be nice if it were true in the game. The fact is on the US side M1g was the standard-issue after mid-1942, Normandy 1944 M5 tank was hardly ever seen on the battlefield, except in some recon outfits, it was all Shermans. So yeah let’s go for more accurate in accordance with history.
I haven’t played long enough and am pretty lousy, but it seems if a player is decked out with better weapons ie semi-auto & effective select-fire auto, as well as better tanks, then they should be forced to take longer to spawn. Giving players advantages in faster loading and sighting etc, is another fake skill increase, the more of those boosts in performance the longer spawn time for the player who has them. This would hopefully limit the desire to run around in the open choice safer shooting positions be left for the noob, and be more cautious, and better use of their squad, and work harder as a group to have holding points where reinforcements really do matter but lose out if highly upgraded players are missing due to slower spawn and the result is a more fluid battlefield.
Frankly, as a player who refuses to plop down hard earned cash and participate in the micro economy of the game which is ultimately unbalancing the game. I would happily pay into a 2 tier monthly subscription $5 & $10 which would allow for a very affordable experience and the subscriber to acquire the better weapons at a faster rate instead of the current long grind. There could still be micro-purchases, but any advanced weaponry or skill tweaks would result in a longer spawn time.
ps. wouldn’t hurt if they added a filter for better battle filters on grouping players by skill & weapon loadout.
Interestingly, shot from full star long rifle on ultrashort distances often just knocks enemy soldiers. But on 70-100 meter range, magicaly, oneshots.
Even not full star rifles make same performance, like 2/5 star Winchester M1895.
As for LMG - you have greater chances to oneshot enemy on 100+ meter range (tested on full star Madsen), then in CQB, where you need 4-5 shots to kill.
It’s a kind of magic.
its people like you that crying about historical accuracy this is why we are getting a copy and paste weapons this update kar 98 and m1 grand enough with the historical accuracy already its not fun that’s why we have a bunch of fg42 spam they only cater to German mains
yea, i for example even want FG42 to be just as accurate as boltactions, since they basically were, MP40 and PPsh should get a dmg upgrade.
I think the best way to balance boltactions is still to give them more active soldiers.
we also need weapon cost system.
Squad has a limited budget, and main rifles( including US semi auto rifle) and inferior weapons cost 1 budget, semi auto and full auto rifles cost 5~ 8.
This makes you to choose between 9 soldiers with common weapons+ one or two semi auto, full auto rifles and 3 or 4 soldiers with semi auto, full auto rifles.
i think a BA should guarantee down a target in one hit except for extreme range but not add dmg to the gun if possible
This is a great idea. it would be interesting to see how different people choose to customize their squads.