1 Like
You are replying to my comments (or at least that’s my impression).
The only person who mentioned HA in our discussion, is you. So I have no idea wtf you are talking about.
If only we had hard data like rough production numbers and lists of division equipment.
Sadly such data is hidden behind the ring of ice defended by pesky round-earthers.
That’s why I’m advocating for more f2p slots.
But you know that game rewards you for dying, right?
Also there are ways to limit this. Like: enemy cost / my cost modifier (so if I kill underpointed enemy I get less spawn score (don’t confuse with exp)). Or even a hard cap for the best gear or a passive income for the loosing side.
For half of the discussion you were arguing with an imaginary enemy over HA so I have some doubts.
Unless you want to tell me I argued about it first (in this discusion) but you may have a hard time.
5 Likes
Making (non-scoped) autos tied to Assaulters and Gunner is not some HA bias, it is basically fullfilling the task of Assaulter and Gunners being sole classes with auto weapons in the first place.
2 Likes
I should have mentioned this earlier, but I took the liberty of skimming through your topic history, and with topic names and suggestions like:
- Give weapons more realistic performance when BR update hits
- Realistic mode
- Make vehicles cost to spawn (no, I don’t mean maintenance)
- Field commander role
- Question for people who want malfunctions back
I brought up historical accuracy without your explicit mention specifically in this particular thread because you alluded to it, and your topic suggestions were in a similar vein.
Between introducing new funni features that have to be dialed in and essentially just… Rearranging what we have, the latter is less complicated to implement.
What has it to do with the current thread?
1 Like
A C T T U A L Y
If from the beginning instead of the machinegunner we get the automatic rifleman or heavy infantry squad imo lock automatic weapons to them and assaulter it would have been normal
2 Likes
Sounds better and more diverse than Assaulter LXXIII.
2 Likes
So?
Yes, my overall goal is to make the game a bit more realistic and a bit more historical. But not like some ppl with one bran cell imagine. It’s a topic for another time.
Anyway, those are my overall goals, yes. But it doesn’t make all my suggestions automatically bad because they aim towards this goal.
Like, I want guns to have realistic rof. Is this a bad suggestion because it aims towards realism and HA?
I like the idea of a guard/elite squad/soldier class. (We had sth like this in the CBT as a locked class.)
It could have access to weapons like FG etc (even to every weapon). But the problem is that in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t change anything since this “elite” soldier is worth as much and is as common as any verminous volkssturm.
The problem is the same squad spam and unrestricted weapon usage not how is easy get a soldier class
2 Likes
The one thing I’m sure nearly everyone in this thread would agree with is that M2 Carbines for riflemen are a bad idea.
Though I still highly advocate for giving them a replacement that is in line with what other factions have- Automatic rifles.
1 Like
Yes.
I would argue again but I’m lazy so…
I use the quote to answer the quote.
I don’t recall you addressing the point I raised directly.
Isnt that the reason why we have rifle grenades? To give them a unique tool/ “skill”?
2 Likes
It’s a tool exclusive to the player.
If the bot holding it expires before it gets used, it’s a wasted investment.
After you run out of ammunition, you can’t even refill the grenades, so you’re stuck with an expensive weapon that is more often than not a starter bolt-action weapon.
Same can be applied to the actual weapons/ tools of flamers, engineers, snipers (since bots dont aim anyway), bombers and medics. Heck, bots cant even select fire modes.
AIs should exist as secondary teammates being able to defend themselves and follow orders, not replacing the player(s).
If every class needs the same, remove classes as a whole and do it like HnG though I remember that this change wasnt working in HnG as well.
4 Likes
I did.
2 Likes
Ok then, why do you not advocate for locking the G41 and G43 to assaulters as that is the best in-game comparison to how they were issued IRL, or making the Garand or Carbine the default rifle for the Americans? Hell, you could even argue with the American’s loose issuing doctrine that every single trooper should be able to use basically every weapon in the American arsenal, as often the only barrier to entry for an American G.I. to get basically anything the Americans had to offer was to pester his CO enough to requisition it for him if that.
If you cannot see already, a perfectly historically accurate class distribution of weapons would completely destroy any semblance of balance in this game. Therefore, certain compromises have to be made for the game to even be considered fair in the first place. Furthermore, with the merge and subsequent new tech tree system, cutting automatics off the standard infantry tree will just mean infantry won’t be able to keep up with the other classes in the later levels, resulting in people not using them and doing what they already did with SMGs, LMGs and flamethrowers, not resolving any of your issues other than restricting the spam of those specific weapons. I’m not saying the M2 Carbine is fair the way it is, but if you want standard infantry to be relevant whatsoever in top tier, they need something at least like an FG 42.
Because it was an irony
The true reason I want to class lock those weapons is because MG and assaulter class exist solely to have those weapons. That’s their purpose. Just like AT soldiers’ purpose is to have AT launchers. We don’t give panzerfaust to everybody (yet).
3 Likes
Then why continuously make posts like that until you are called out? If it is truly irony, would you not say it once or twice and then move on to your true point instead of doubling down the way you did?
Engineers were never meant to have shotguns and yet here we are. Furthermore, while a case can be made for M2C being equivalent to an SMG and the FG 42 being equivalent to an LMG, the AVT is something completely different. It’s not an LMG due to the magazine size, but it’s not an SMG because of the calibre (for the sake of argument, I’m choosing to ignore the Federov which should be an LMG, but that is another story). It is something completely different, best described as a battle rifle or automatic rifle. It doesn’t fit either of these classes particularly well, nor does issuing doctrine help us figure out where it should go because they were issued sporadically and almost seeming at random like so much of the Soviet’s issuing policy. So what exactly are you going to do about that.