Stop spamming Suggestions thread with nonsense.
1 Like
A rifleman or another solder that cant use smg 
Yeah most SMG are a BR lower then they should be IMO.
The only BR on which infantry perform just as well as assaulters is BR5.
1 Like
This is true! But rifles should, while offering different benefits and downsides to an SMG, still have equal value. The 10 round stripper feed rifles in their current form do not do this.
rifles have better ranged performance, while, yes, they are worse in close range. I think all BR3 SA rifles (aside from the M1) should reload with stripper clips. All mag-fed BR4 rifles should be BR3 until +/- 0 MM. Rifles shouldnât be equal to SMGs, rather, I think the SMG category as a whole needs a rebalance. (which I might touch on later, idk, I got class soon)
But then again, you and I seem to have different visions of what this game should be.
Elaborate, how would you fix this rifle âissueâ?
The rifle âissueâ gets fixed by having rifles with better performance. I believe SA rifles with 10 round magazines and good EDT (0.15-0.2 instead of 0.3) is perfect for BR 3, when we compare them to the current stripper-feed weapons. Assuming every nation also had something comparable to the Winchester and Fedorov at BR 2 (both are great options for BR 2 rifles for straight-pulls and semi-autos respectively), they wouldnât be a crazy jump in strength.
Does this mean stripper-feed semi-autos in their current form would be obsolete? Yes. The devs could find some way to make the slower reload worth it compared to magazine-fed SA rifles with the same capacity. Maybe 16.8 damage?
And of course, this allows for 20 round SA rifles at BR 4, which bridge the gap to the select-fires at BR 5 much better. All of these considerations would give BR 2-4 more variety of choice (not to mention more viability of BR 4 in general).
This I take issue with. While you present a fair point, this kind of balancing is what I often hate. I would argue that not everything needs to be viable. Imo, all br3 semis should be clip fed, and the mag fed versions of BR4 should stay how they are. SF rifles should be (imo) moved to MG and Assault classes only, as that spam makes the game very unenjoyable and is why I mainly avoid BR 4-5.
aside from a few Premiums (like the gerat 03 for example) there arenât any 20rd SA rifles for BR4 as none were really issued during WW2.
Idk, Aside from the SVT-38 (which needs a clip reload) The rifle balance philosophy (not br5) that the devs have right now is a good one imo. you start with shit (armaguerra) and go to some early deigns (g41, svt38 if it had a balanced reload) and then into later more refined designs with the faster mag loads (even though, the G43 and svt40 were mainly issued with clips irl, I think the mag loading works fine for the game. As a modder I would like clip loaded versions of these for my mods) then you move into the shitstorm BR. I just think that SMGs should be given a little more recoil accross the board, and slightly slower (like 25-30%) reloads to help balance out the close range combat a bit better and reward better aim.
But why should the BR 3 semis be clip fed as standard, when the SMGs and some MGs are a much better option? Why shouldnât we allow all of the different types of weapons to perform well at their respective BR? People complain about competitive players SMG spamming, but the solution to this issue is being intentionally ignored? And if you donât want to play BR 4-5, thatâs totally fine. Itâs faster-paced by design, and it also has meta issues that should be addressed.
Thereâs 20 round semi autos that could definitely be added, thereâs even fielded options for each tree: SVT 40 20 for USSR, Howell Automatic Rifle for Allies, Gewehr 43 20 for Axis, and ZH-29 20 for Japan. The options expand further if you go to weapons that were tested and intended for service but werenât accepted, and even more for straight-up prototypes. One of the main reasons BR 4 is ignored is it outclassed by BR5 astronomically, and stronger semi-autos at that BR would make it more viable.
In most games I prefer semis. hit hard and accurate (they reward players with quick aim and precision)
I still use them alot in Enlisted but they are ruined a fair bit by the belowâŚ
Fix that slow ass cone not lining up with the sights, and its actually decentâŚthese should be for players that prefer precision and Alpha strike over spray⌠VERY strong in most FPSâŚin Enlisted they have been neutered with this dispersion, and fire rate limiters
Continuing the discussion from Fix Semi-Auto Dispersion:
Now fix that and my preferences would be
Stripper clips in BR 3, Fast reload 10 detach in BR 4, Slow reload 20 Round BR 4
3 Likes
These werenât issued in wide enough use to justify addition to the TT.
The Howell, for example: from my research only saw use by the British home guard.
@Veekay45 Imma need you to back me up here as you seem more knowledgeable on this subject.
This argument is once again, the kind of balancing that I hate. There should be weapons that are objectively better, it is balanced as they are limited (ex, max 3 machine guns in a squad). I think when comparing weapons (aside from a few specific cases) we should judge weapons of the same category. Rifles should be judged agains rifles, not SMGs or MGs. They are all weapon classes that perform differently and should be treated as such. a rifle (excluding SF rifles) will just never be better than an smg, but it could be better than an MG, as rifles are generally more controllable, but the MGs have auto with high rof. Weapons blanced against other weapons of the same type allows for more dynamic gameplay. you shouldnât be able to rush into a close quarters fight with a rifle and expect to have a fair fight with 1:1 balance. weapons should be designed to excell at their role. Rifles are meant to be all round weapons, the backbone of any army. Good at medium to long range, and ok in close range, but weak compared to an SMG.
your whole idea of balancing may fit a game like cod where you can equip whatever you want, but enlisted is balanced, in part, by limiting the amount of a specific weapon you can take per squad.
2 Likes
The Devâs just need finally take the plunge and make the game a true 0/0 matchmaking. Until they do, BR4 is a myth, and quite honestly so is BR1. Until the Devâs go to a true 0/0 then there is always going to be mythical BR ratings across the board.
2 Likes
To the best of my knowledge there iz Zero evidence anything from that list was ever deployed in WW2.
But @Slakrrrrrr is always welcome to shed some light and provide some sources
1 Like
Iâm happy to do that.
The SVT-40 20 is simply based on principle of the AVT-40 20 existing in-game. The weapons are near-identical, the magazines were developed and field tested in 1942/43, and the magazines are compatible. The same thing was done with the SVT-40 Bubnov drum: Iâve only ever seen it on AVT-40s in photos, but it exists in-game on the SVT-40.
For the Allies, like Chris_Vector_ said, the Howell Automatic Rifle was only used by the Home Guard, at least according to my brief searches as well. However, the Meteor F Mk.3 was also in service but only for home defense within WW2. I am unaware of any other Commonwealth SA rifle that could be fed with Lee-Enfield trench magazines, or USA SA rifles fed from BAR magazines or derivatives that were actually in service. Itâs the biggest âstretchâ here, but far less than something like the Su-9 compared to the other jets.
The Gewehr 43 was field trialled in limited quantities with a 20 round magazine, the same one on the premium Gerat 03.
As for Japan, they captured many ZH-29 and ZH-32s from the Chinese Northeastern Army in Manchuria. The weapon was then used as the basis for Tokyo Gas & Electricâs âType Otsuâ rifle. If the Japanese tree was to include Siam/Thailand in the future (due to their presence in the Burma campaign), Siam did purchase ZH-29s as well, though it is unknown if any were used in Burma specifically.
Now, with all of this in mind: I am of the opinion that a weapon can be a part of a tech tree so long as it fits a role (in this case a 20 round SA rifle with 15.3 damage capability), and is the closest thing to a weapon within that role for a tree or nation to field use, but not limited to it. This seems to be Darkflowâs approach to the subject as well, since we see weapons and equipment such as the Fedorov M1912, RD-44, T20, Meteor F Mk.3, Type 4, Tokyo Arsenal, Chi-Nu, Chi-Nu II, Chi-To, Chi-Ri II, Na-To and Kikka are weapons that WE KNOW never saw combat in WW2. If anything, I would prefer to use something like the American Winchester M1940 (essentially a G30M but with minor changes and a 20 round magazine) over the Howell Automatic Rifle, but it was only a trials weapon, and I wanted to appeal to historical accuracy as much as possible to those with stricter views than my own. Weâre going to disagree on where to draw the line, and I donât think any arguing will change our stances, but this is the best information I can present on the subject, and I think it would be beneficial for the health of the game in all aspects.
1 Like
Well I know these exxisted, but my question was whether they were actually deployed in WW2
I agree with this statement:
I believe non-standard issue weapons should never (have been) part of any TT.
1 Like
The information is all there. Ignoring it and doubling down is intellectually dishonest.
How does one ask for sources, and then ignore them when the text is provided?
Once again, my question was:
1 Like