Map size depends. Some maps are small and then you have Stalingrad or Tunisia which can compete with RS maps in terms of playable size.
You should also consider that the maps are planned to be bigger. This is mentioned back in the old days and you can see this by taking a deeper look at the maps while flying (especially Moscow and Normandy). We are currently just playing on parts of a big map.
If you get flanked, backstabbed, bombed, He-shelled etc. all the time, then your team sucks hard. You write like you are the sole guy playing on your team, while the enemy has the maximum amount of players. You will also not secure a lot of ground if you gun around on one or two spots/ survive long enough against P-47s.
This is not so important, because the accuracy of machine guns (0.68 on the MG42, for example) does not allow you to effectively shoot beyond 100 meters. This parameter has been reduced several times already, and now I regularly see bullets fly past the target due to chance.
The AVT can shoot twice or three times as accurately and still have more damage, at such distances the rate of fire is no longer important and rifles feel better. In addition, in the open field you are a victim of tanks
I’m convinced I’m playing with retards because I haven’t played below the 2 line since day 1 of the game.
People with fg-42 make 15 kills per match, don’t know how to properly manage units, don’t understand when to sacrifice soldiers to hold or capture a point.
I played almost all the matches alone and used to not rely on anyone, playing in a group does not matter what to play with - you win.
So yes, I play with the idea that I am the only one in the team and I must always be ready to single-handedly fight off the point.
To win a match you need to attack points, so weapons that can’t do that are almost useless.
Now machine guns are on the verge of oblivion. In Stalingrad they are useless.
Let Stalingrad remain for fans of such mechanics, I don’t need it.
This is why I argue/ talked about improving-buffing-fixing-changing-repairing (or any other non-binary verb) the bipods and talk about changing the dispersion (in a positive way ofc).
That is, in my opinion, more healthy both for the game and machine guns than removing the stamina stuff, which imo doesn’t fix their accuracy/ dispersion issue and their role in the game.
Well. Too bad here I guess. I cant change/ argue about that feeling/ experience here.
Yea, used to even say that in description of the game. Lucky it was so poorly written that it could have meant anything from realistic models to realistic names.
It was rather clear that the game was never going to be realistic in sense you seem to take it.
Otherwise it would have been exactly that from the start.
That’s not true, if you’ve been playing the game for over a year like I have, then you would see that changes have been made on the accounts of both gameplay and realism. I don’t have a problem with a lot of the prototype and lesser used weaponry being put in the game because I get the chance to learn more about them, however, I still think they shouldn’t take place over the standard weapons for a nation. Major reason why I had issue with the Breda being the starting LMG for the Soviets in Stalingrad. Captured weapons being the most common is not smart.
It’s just that the only strong machine guns the U.S. has. The MG34-42 has great dispersion (1.5+ times higher than other machine guns) and excessive rate of fire. The Soviet machine guns have great recoil (although the DT is a machine gun not inferior to the MG).
And I have NEVER been defeated by machine gun squads for the Axis or USSR.
The PPSh wins for the USSR, the FG-42 wins for the Axis.
Only the BAR and M1919 have abnormally low dispersion parameters and very low firing penalties on the move (50-150% less than the MG42). Only the U.S. spams machine guns. But believe me, when the Thompson with 50 rounds comes along, they will spam it because it is “meta”.
I played before machine guns were nullified and never felt humiliated by them. I don’t know what all those people who added spread in MG-42 comparable to Thompson M21\28 (0.68 in both cases - is that realistic?) were weeping about.
I’d rather them have all the possible campaigns they can to fully represent WW2. There’s going to be repeats because there were only so many weapons in WW2 and multiple fronts and battles included the same weapons. Considering the amount of people who are playing Stalingrad with repeats, I doubt it’s the “majority” rather a loud minority that actually care about repeats for historical and commonly used weapons like the Kar, Mosins, MPs, MG, PPDs, etc. New campaigns should have all players start on the same playing field. Meaning that they have to level up through all the same levels, whether or not they have them unlocked in other campaigns or not. If you were smart about it, you’d level up the same unlocked gun in other campaigns, then transfer it if you really don’t want to level it up from start.
Be my guest, anyone who fell for this dirty trick deserves being pissed off anyway for encouraging devs to ruin premium squads more instead of properly fixing what is wrong with them.
Well I decided to skip stalingrad for good and more I read about it more convinced I get that it was right choice.
So idk how many players is playing it, but before it was even released quite many said they wont touch to it due to p2w content.
So how many people is playing it ? Is it like normandy ? moscow ? or like tunisia or berlin ?
I am not against a stamina drain mechanic, however this drawback should also come with a benefit, like accurate MG fire, but yea right now its just an “unnecessary” nerf.
