This is total BS. Otherwise, the term “carbine” wouldn’t have been used after the introduction of the assault rifle.
Those terms are not interchangeable. There is a reason why the M4 is classified as a carbine assault rifle, while the M16 is only classified as an assault rifle.
Not all carbines are assault rifles. And not all assault rifles are carbines.
Numerous weapons could be reclassified as carbines.
For example Beretta 1918/30, KB-P-135, M1 carbine (and its variants), M2 carbine (and its variants), VG 1-5 or Mk 36 that you mentioned.
Yes, that’s exactly what I want. I don’t know if they (the planners) will take this small flaw seriously. By the way, this suggestion was first proposed by @OggeKing
I know, I tried to find a topic with all the needed infos on it, I didn’t search too much in the old topics to find his topic again, I just needed a topic with the gathered infos on it. Iirc he (@OggeKing) brought up the book/magazine with the old pic of this gun and all the historical infos, while I searched and found again the link to the forum where the pic of the fake gun was and posted it on this forum, because nobody knew where this idea of the devs of a carcano with a german scope came from.
I have already suggested that the semi-auto carbines shooting a small caliber round should be available to all classes, because these were issued to rear troops or specialist units and were more a PDW than a standard issue rifle. At the moment, in the game, we have: the M1 carbine (and its variants), the VG 1-5, the KB-P-135, the Beretta 1918 (after correction) and 1918/30. We could also add the De Lisle bolt-action carbine with these, and also the semi-auto pistols with a buttstock attached.
Ideally, I would also like to see all classes be able to use the standard bolt-action carbines and short rifles too, because they were issued to rear troops or specialist units and could also be used for assaults because of their small size.
This would make the option to choose a second weapon instead of a backpack more viable, because atm why would I choose to have two weapons of the same type ? There is no reason to choose this over the backpack.
But anyway, what do you have to say @_DELAVR ? You’re the weapons specialist of the forum, so, should the M2 carbine stay as a rifleman weapon ? Should it be moved to the assault class instead ? Or should it be available to everyone ?
I have added a few things that slipped under my radar in an edit of my first post. There are many things that need to be corrected, I tried to think about everything, but I have still forgotten a few. These changes are for the S1-100, the Mosin M1938 carbine, and the PzB 38. I have added another poll for these options too, because apparently polls can’t be edited after a period of 5 minutes, and I don’t want to mess with the ones I’ve already created. So now, don’t forget to vote for this new one too !
The game specifically features the Type 100 aerial machine gun, and I don’t see any point in turning it into a Type 1. The Japanese used plenty of field modifications to adapt aircraft guns for ground use (I’d love to find a ground-modified Type 2—the MG 131 copy—by the way). Essentially, what we have in-game is a composite representation of how a Type 100 could have been modified. Again, this isn’t a mass-produced weapon but a field conversion for ground roles. Since we actually have an American brochure documenting the use of the Type 100 on the ground, I don’t see a reason to change anything.
You’re right that the .30 Carbine is essentially an intermediate cartridge—it sits right in that ‘grey area’ between the .45 ACP and the .30-06 Springfield. However, the strict definition of an ‘intermediate cartridge’ is often just a formality, and since we are talking about a game, historical logic doesn’t always translate perfectly to balance.
Regarding the M2 Carbine, I’d actually lean towards classifying it as an assault rifle (for the Assaulter class). Keeping it as a automatic rifle doesn’t make much sense in the current meta.
Thanks for your detailed response. I am of the opinion that when in doubt, we should at least stick to the original appearance of the Type 100. It doesn’t make sense to me that they’ve modelled it with a stock and one pistol grip, because the original twin pistol grips had linked triggers, so why change that ? It works the same if you pull one or both triggers at the same time.
By the way, I was browsing a bit in the weapons in my inventory, and Ifound something funny: while the M2 carbine is classified as a rifle in the game and only usable by the rifleman/other classes, the M2A1 carbine, literally the same gun but with a foldable stock made for paratroopers, is actually a SMG ingame only usable by the assault class. I’m not making this up, lol:
This topic is already kind of about a single idea: corrections of weapons already in game. As I said in a post above, I don’t think it would have been very useful to create a topic for every weapon I’ve listed here. With the ones I’ve added in my edit, I am already at 20 guns. Should I just create 20 different topics to just say “this weapon has a problem that was discovered a while ago, please fix.” I don’t think it would be very useful.
For my poll, it can give the devs an order of priority if they ever find this topic. I’m not used to polls and the ones on this topic are the first ones of the multiple choice type that I’ve made.
And also, for the M2 carbine, don’t forget to check the answer from DELAVR and also the two pics I’ve taken that point out a fun fact about this gun ingame.
Says who? One is an exclusive, unique, and more limited BP variant of the weapon.
Making both available to the same classes would completely destroy any sense of uniqueness, it would only be a to anyone who bought it for 750g per piece.
And I’ll tell you why it’s a SMG. To make it available to vehicle crews. Back then, that’s how they handled it.
Before they introduced special exceptions, like with the M1A5 Garand. (Which is a semi-automatic rifle that can be used by vehicle crews, for the same obvious reason as the M2A1 carbine is — the folding stock.)
I was thinking more about making both exclusive to the assault. And we could add that this would be convenient, because it would change nothing to the M2A1, it would just change the normal M2 that isn’t a premium or bp weapon.
And the M2A1 was made for the paratroopers, it just happened that its compact size was convenient for vehicle crews, like the M3 grease gun or the M55 reising.
It would change a lot. It would no longer have a unique feature to it. It would simply be a worse version of the two, with a slightly different model.
You just want to reduce the unique nature of both weapons by making them practically identical - for no good reason whatsoever. Probably only just to validate your opinion on weapon classifications.
I voted on all the projects because if you list the problems, then they all have issues, and for the sake of fairness in the game, they should all be fixed by the official team.
Bruh, everywhere you look, everybody says the M2 carbine is the closest thing to an assault rifle the US got during WW2, and it is at least considered a SMG because it doesn’t shoot a rifle cartridge.
Here are a few vids from Ian:
It is not my opinion, because it IS considered as an AR or an SMG. But yeah I guess “I just want to destroy a weapon for no good reason just to feel better that my opinion was validated.”
Furthermore, I could add that I have specifically mentioned in my first post that I haven’t included the FNAB rate of fire debate, whether it was 400 or 800 rpm, because we don’t have enough material to confirm if it had a rate of fire of 800 rpm. We only see one gun shooting at 800 rpm, but it was also used in the algerian war, so if a broken spring was replaced by another with a stronger force, it could modify the rate of fire. We need more material before doung such a drastic change.
Should the FNAB have its rate of fire increased to 800 rpm if it is proven one day that these were its original specs ? Yes.
Should the FNAB keep its rate of fire of 400 rpm if there is nothing more that says that it was different and if new sources appear one day to confirm that it indeed had a 400 rpm rate of fire ? Also yes.
The game should strive to be as close to reality as possible about the weapons it adds, and not just be another CoD clone that shits on the guns specs just for balance reasons, and where the AKs-74u is considered as an SMG, lol.
I forgot, lol. Editing a poll is impossible after 5 minutes, and I won’t scrap the polls already there just to add this and scrap at the same time the votes of the people who have already voted.
But anyway, the more votes there are, the more visibility a topic gets, so even voting for a “no option” gives more visibility to a topic. It’s better to not vote if you don’t want to give visibility to this topic.
Most of the things here are small corrections, which will have to be implemented one day or another. These aren’t suggestions of “new ideas”. And my question for my poll is “Which changes interest you the most ?”, so it can give the devs an idea of which corrections the players want to see ASAP, and those that can be implemented a bit later.
I’ve already told you that I forgot about a “no option” answer, simply because it wasn’t how I envisioned this poll. And yes, the more votes/likes there are on a topic, the more visibility a topic gets, even if the votes are against the idea suggested on the topic. Ever heard of “Bad publicity is still publicity” ?
And i found that reasonable… but then you are trying to use all publicity is good publicity argument… telling me that not showing dislike is better than doing it… if your state city or residence was running a poll on increasing taxes by 500% you just wouldn’t vote… you would be giving it publicity… better to stay silent.
Of course i expect that when you don’t even follow the basic rules of a suggestion.
What are you trying to accomplish by saying this? There is no need to be against it as they are small changes which involves removing a weapon from the game? Mhm.
Your suggestion is a suggestion nonetheless and thus is subject to the rules of making them.
The effort devs take in doing what you are presenting is irrelevant… removing body armor bonus will take minimal effort yet devs don’t do it… that is such. simple change… people who make polls shouldn’t even include no option… how stupid does that sound?
So you are saying all of these things need to be done… you are creating urgency and suggestions changes.
Your suggestion involves
A. Removing a weapon from the game outright
B. Changing the class type of 2 weapons… one clearly functioning as an assault rifle in game.
C. Making the only TT smg that can compete TTK wise with PPS a semi auto weapon… almost completely making the M1918/30 irrelevant despite its BR difference.
Such major changes fundamentally change the way you play these things in which case rightfully people should be able to disagree.
One begins to wonder why before making such a in depth topic you don’t even consult the rules for posting… obviously you don’t care if devs see it as it won’t be forwarded… there are so many things here too that is basic ball knowledge.
Although the irony being such a topic was posted on the RU forum yet properly done with evidence … and thus was listened to and changed low BR japan balance immensely.
Actually, comments are what bump the topic in which case you are on the right track.
You aren’t running a political campaign… you are suggesting changing gameplay features in a game we all play.
to anyone who bought it for 750g per piece.