I'd buy far in the Cash-Shop if it wasn't so overpriced

Archive Suggestions - Archive
21

YES!

Oh my God, I’ve already put in about $20 USD I’m pretty sure, if not that then surely $25 CAD or so, and I’m CRAZY butthurt that I need to put down another $37.50 to get that M1941 Johnson! If it was only $5, I’d have already bought it now, AND another squad or two. If it was $10, likewise, I’d have bought it, but probably would not buy any more squads unless there was REALLY a firearm I wanted access to. The BAR variant that the Germans use wouldn’t be interesting enough for $10 I don’t think, but $5? Hell yeah, bring it on, it’d get me playing the German side more!

Gaijin is being too damn stingy, seriously, I really ought to stretch that inner journalist I have by putting the time in to figure out exactly how much ‘E’ you would have to buy to unlock ALL squads, and bring that information to Enlisted gamers. I still suspect it’s up around $400-500 to gain access to everything.

2 Likes
22

Yes. Yes! YES! I’ve wanted it ever since I spotted it!!!

As I recall it holds 10+1 rounds, while the M1 Garand can only manage 7+1. The Johnson and its magazine are unique, much like the Norwegian Krag (which America used before the M1903) in that you can reload without opening the bolt. The loading gate is on the side of the receiver so the bolt is in no way in the way of loading rounds. You can load it with two 5-round M1903 clips. As such, I do believe the M1941 is inherently slower to reload. This info comes from years ago, by the way, as when I found out about the M1941 I went on this long ol’ research kick where I REALLY wanted to compare it with the M1 Garand since I adore the Garand, which was designed by Canadian-born John Cantius Garand who is French Canadien, from St. Remi, Quebec.

The M1941 may be comparable in weight to the M1, but is probably a bit lighter. This would generally suggest more felt recoil, however it uses a short-recoil operation, which I’m pretty sure means the barrel reciprocates as you fire. This may very well decrease felt recoil, so there may be some legitimacy to that. A couple aspects that go against the M1941, however, is that due to the barrel reciprocation, attaching a bayonet can negatively affect reliability, especially if you USE the bayonet which can reciprocate the barrel back and cause it to be out of battery, meaning it will not fire if there’s pressure on the bayonet. Also, it was an inherently more complex design, I don’t think it was even meant to be fully disassembled by soldiers in the field. Full disassembly and detailed cleaning was expected to be done by the armorer. There’s also very small pieces that would easily be lost, as I recall.

So there’s some give-and-take. Higher capacity, POSSIBLY lighter recoil, potentially a little bit lighter in general, but it also has a slower reload and (at least in real life) the reliability allegedly diminishes when the bayonet is fixed, plus it’s excessively complicated for a service rifle though that doesn’t really matter in-game. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s pay to win, at least not in terms of that rifle alone, though the abundance of perks you get may be perceived as such.

Even at $15 I’d probably give in and purchase it, likely vowing to not put down another dollar on the damn game, but $37.50?! Ridiculous… HOW MUCH WOULD IT BE TO UNLOCK ALL SQUADS/TANKS HIDDEN BEHIND A PAY WALL?! HOW MUCH, YOU GREEDY BUGGERS?!

1 Like
23

If 10 player spend 400-500$ they have the same ammount of money if 100 people as buyed the game if this is a buy to play now we actual say the numbers of who spend at least 300$ in a couple of month is more huge so at least i pray they actually use to money for the game instead of adding other money grinding shit

24

Why? If it’s for historical accuracy, then, well… its a) a videogame and b) the entire game is inaccurate. Seeing G41 in the Normandy makes more sense than FG42s for everybody.

Also theres a pretty simple solution for this problem: just release premium squads without fancy rare weaponary, so there doesnt need to be a limit. Just give them upgraded standard guns and maybe mix up the composition to make them more interesting.

25

That WOULD be a legitimate argument, if not for such things as the scoped M1 Garand on D-Day, the Ross Rifle which even in Tunisia would make no sense since it was replaced in like 1915 and Canada had over 20 years to obtain Mk.III* Lee Enfields before WWII and even then in early WWII we were producing the more easily produced No.4 and particularly the No.4 Mk.I* (even easier to produce than No.4 Mk.I) which we were replacing our Mk.III* Lee Enfields with. If we’ve already got lots of Mk.III* rifles, and we’re even producing/fielding No.4 rifles, why on EARTH would we get ROSS Rifles of all things in the field, and in a DESERT no less! It didn’t do well in the mud, I wouldn’t say it’d much fancy sand either!

I hear the FG-42 didn’t see much use in Normandy, certainly not during the D-Day landing anyhow, and the M3 probably shouldn’t be the go-to SMG given it allegedly first entered front-line service in summer 1944, and was probably specifically relegated to tankers since it was conveniently sized for them. Even the M1 Carbine would probably be annoying and unwieldy to take in and out of a tank, maybe M1A1 Carbine would be half-decent but the M3 is even more compact. In fact with stock collapsed it’s just shy of 22", and the M1/M1A1/M2 Carbine has an 18" barrel. There you go. Speaking of which, M1A1, little-to-no field use in WWII to my understanding.

So, nah, Gaijin can’t pull that nonsense on us. They already got the timeframe vs firearm situation all wonky, saying they have the prices bumped up because of that is rather silly in my opinion. It’s the most sympathetic notion for the prices that I can fathom, but I reject it regardless. I believe in making money on your creations, I’m a writer, but my prices aren’t so darn high that they piss people off! I keep my prices reasonable, and still make my few hundred bucks a month!

26

for such cheap prices that wouldnt be premium…

27

i agree … because:

imagem
imagem1920×1080 695 KB

imagem
imagem1920×1080 740 KB

paying for extra campaing levels its just wrong… we pay for “unique” content… in hopes that one day if they remove it from the shop like cbt squads we are the only ones with them.

whales like me that can will still buy even at higher prices… system wont change until we stop. and i m afraid that wont happen.

28

Woh i not know they force to pay new campagni level this is wrong is the entire game vision wrong neither
EA reach this level i know in war thunder money=high tier buts the low tier is accesible to every one and is no money grabbing oh well i pray for the best

29

You don’t have to pay for new campaign levels though… And in War Thunder I got to high tiers as a free to play… So please stop saying false statements.

30

didnt get it . but so far they didnt force me to buy nothing at all.

31

I wouldn’t mind dropping 40 bucks on an f2p game, if I get something good in return. 40 for a single squad, no matter how good, is ridiculous. What difference does it make to the devs if I can buy 1 squad with 40 bucks or 5? They’re not losing anything. As it stands, I’m not willing to pay for anything other than premium or battle pass.

2 Likes
32

Honestly I don’t want the squads I just want the guns like give me an option to buy 5 M41’s for 15 USD and I’d jump on it… Also premium sidearms would be a nice addition…

1 Like
33

Good thing theyre worse than regular squads :laughing:

1 Like
34

Just today I posted a topic and suggested that if you buy a premium squad team, the weapon is added to the available picks in bronze wagers.

Was just an idea to increase value.

I totally agree that the actual prices are not worth it.

1 Like
35

They are dog shit compared to regular squad

1 Like
36

The johnson isnt as good as you think. Yes it has a bigger magazine. but you trade off the reload speed. which compared to the garand, its not really worth it. The sights are quite nice. but you play exactly the same as the garand. I have not really noticed less recoil compared to the garand. but then, you only fire at higher rate of fire in cqc.

I personally prefer the garand over the johnson.

The engineers has good perks. but once again, you dont really notice anything too much. only thing is building a little faster is nice to get back into the combat. I would also hate to see the johnson without the reload speed increase.

2 Likes
37

Bang-on, though I don’t actually know from memory what the sights are like on the Johnson and I’m not about to put down over $30 (it’s 15% off now so it’s only a bit over $30, to be fair, but regardless) on a squad with a unique rifle especially when, apparently, I can’t even put that rifle in any other squad? Is that true? If so, that’s horse-shit and I will NOT be buying any damn squads whatsoever!

38

The sights are not as good as the garand. their fairly blocky as per the picture below. No you cant use the rifle on other squads. only that squad.
Screenshot_7

39

Okay, yeah, it does look quite blocky but at least there’s plenty of clearance around the front sight. It’d help if you had the sight raised a bit so that it wasn’t further obscured by the dark target below but I can still see the gap between the front sight post and the protecting ears/wings on either side of it. I wish the rear sight was more circular on the outside instead of like that, it would be much better then, but yes I find the M1 Garand sights are far better.

I now have far less desire to get the M1941, in part because of those sights but also in part because your ability to use the M1941 is so very limited. Maybe if you only got four but could give them to whatever troops you wanted, even if you can’t get more with bronze/silver orders (or maybe if you save up like five orders before you can purchase one m1941) then I’d be a bit open-minded about it but if it’s limited to THAT one squad, I’ve got no interest, especially with sights like those.

This image also shows that the sights appear to be correct to real life, except the aperture is FAR larger… which I appreciate. Why on Earth would they make the sight so darn small. Yes, it makes the rear sight less prone to damage, and if you increase the elevation on the rear sight then it will undoubtedly rise above those protective wings, but if you’re engaging targets at THAT kind of distance, the likelihood of dropping the rifle or falling onto it seems EXTREMELY low. Yeesh… I’ve listed out some pros and cons of comparing the M1 to M1941 before, and I have to say, the M1941 just added another con to the list with that ridiculous rear sight.

40

Wait, it’s really hard to tell but are those wings ATTACHED to the rear sight base? As in raising the rear sight would also raise the wings? That better not be the case, because for one it puts the usefulness of those wings into question because if they’re connected to the rear sight, then those wings might also contribute to damage to the rear sight upon dropping it or something, hopefully it’s attached to the receiver as it should be, but if those wings are indeed connected to the rear sight then there’s NO excuse to make the rear sight that stupidly simple! If you’re going to take cost-saving measures, that seems like a really dumb one to go for on something like a RIFLE! The M1A1 Thompson, sure, a bent piece of steel with a hole in it for 50yd or 100yd or whatever and a notch on top for 100yd or 150 or 200 or whatever it is, fine, good, just make sure that the sights are on and it can be that simple, but a RIFLE?!

Nah, I suspect that those protective wings are attached to the receiver or something else that is very solid instead of the adjustable rear sight which can move. Just… damn… what was Johnson thinking there? DAMN do I want to design and manufacture my own firearms!