The low firing rate of 450 makes STG45(M) uncomfortable to use and puts it at a huge disadvantage in combat at close distance. Compared to other AR weapons in Germany, STG45 (M) performs relatively poorly in its own BR, especially when competing with MKB42 (M).
Someone had previously suggested on the forum to lower STG45 (M) to BR3, but this suggestion was not welcomed.
So a better approach is to improve STG45 (M) to make it more suitable for BR4.
Due to the principle of historical accuracy, we shouldn’t arbitrarily increase the damage or firing rate of a weapon.
Therefore, I suggest improving STG45 (M) in the following areas:
Reloading speed has increased from 2.6 (2.2) to 2.4 (2.0)
Recoil decreased from 37/12 to 33/8
Hipfiring spread decreased from 15 to 6
Visual recoil reduced from 1.6 to 1.3
All the above changes are adjustments made based on other ARs in Germany.
These changes will not alter the DPS (firing rate and damage) of STG45 (M), but will make it more comfortable to use and more suitable for BR4.
I can’t think of any other way.
STG45 (M) uses a regular 7.92kurz bullet, and if you want to significantly buff it, you have to change the firing rate. In that case, we would only create another MKB42 (H), and this will involve the HA and BR issues of other AR, which will definitely bring more controversy.
That’s why I prefer it to go to BR3, it won’t be unbalance.
Uragan SMG has a fictional rate of fire of 860 and PPSH 41 Box 1150 in BR3, so I don’t see why the STG 45 M shouldn’t be BR3
And it makes no sense to be in BR4 when Soviet submachine guns have at least double the rate of fire (some almost triple) and all have more than double the ammo in the magazine.
Aligning with my previous suggestion to buff all ARs to one-tap at close range: an StG.45(M) with 13.9 damage and 450 RPM would be balanced if the gun kept all other stats the same, or potentially nerfed. Similar TTK as a Kiraly 39M or PPD-40, but less ammo, worse handling, and still two-taps vitality beyond 21m.
And yes, we can find similar weapons for the other trees if they so desire. USSR had plenty of AR prototypes, for example.
Radical suggestions are welcomed, but that doesn’t mean they have to be implemented.
It’s a good thing that we are able to bring ideas that are outside-of-the-box, and then filter them beyond the perspective of a single lens to see if people think it works. I do find “forum democracy” leads to people who don’t know anything about math, balance, or play at a competitive level making comments about weapon tuning, but that’s the price of giving everyone a voice, and it’s an overall decent system.
