I like the idea of limiting weapon access to specific classes, but I wish Bombers had access to Trooper weapons as well instead of just starter rifles. I can see the point that they already have class specific weapons, like gunners got mgs and so a starter rifle is only but a formality.
But Bombers having just a super-slow reload Anti-Tank rifle are kinda helpless in regular combat unless they got a rifle. So why don’t they have Trooper rifles just like Radio-operators, Engineers and Mortarmen (I haven’t gotten to flamethrowers so I can’t tell if they can or can’t have them as well).
Another thing I’d like to point out is anti-tank rile armor piercing balancing, and I don’t know which way this should go so I’m just pointing it out. I spent uncounted shots at the front of the Russian starter Tankette and got squat, no penetrations, I literally aimed at the driver windows and hatches, nothing.
I checked AT rifle penetration, it says it pens 35mm at an astounding 5 meters. That Tankette has 35mm at the front. So the only way to pen this thing is from the sides and behind. Now I just point this thing out that I can pen and wreck any higher lvl tank from the front except that tankette.
I think this requires a balancing to either side, either we can pierce armor on any tank from each direction or each tank should be impenetrable from the front, The player in me says every tank should be penned from each side cause this sucks, but the fan of a challange says you shouldnt pen from the front ever, I mean those are tanks, those things are built to withstand a tank shell and suddenly I can use a rifle to pen it?
Shoot the turret. The T-60’s best aspect is its hull front armor, but the turret is much thinner.
The germans get the Pz2, with similar hull protection.
That’s on the devs for putting the shittiest tanks as the “middle level” tanks. Also, the BT-7 is ment to be a very light and mobile tank, not built to withstand anything more than light rifle fire, while the T-60 was heavier armored to withstand anti-tank rifle fire from the front. As such, it is also much slower.
Well each tank can be penned from each side if you aim at the right spot. For certain tanks, that spot is the entire front, while for others, you actually have to aim for weakspots.
No. These are early light and medium tanks, most being designed and built in the interwar period. They were built to withstand rifle fire, but often not much more than that. But these anti-tank rifles are either a much larger caliber (PTRD), or have much more propellant (PzB) to propell their bullet at much higher velocities, for more penetration, so you can’t exactly call them rifles. As an example, the T-26 and Pz3B both have 14.5mm armor, and the PTRD is a 14.5mm anti-tank rifle.
It is right if you account for the tungsten core they use in the 7.92mm bullet, while the 14.5mm used a more conventional API (armor piercing incendiary) bullet.
How about we allow weapons and vehicles to be accurate to reality, rather than just saying to nerf or buff something just because.
It’s hard to find penetration information for the 7.92x94mm cartridge, but 35mm certainly seems about right, if not a little optimistic. The truth is, German anti-tank rifles were just not as effective when compared to the Soviet’s PTRD or PTRS (though the PTRS is pretty unreliable). The 14.5x114mm cartridge that the Soviets used was far more powerful and capable with about 45mm of penetration.
As for tanks, those honestly should have armor values based in historical fact as well. The T-60 is only particularly strong from the front because of it’s sloped armor, and any AT rifle will go through the sides just fine, as you said.
However, a way to balance is by adjusting the position of equipment in the campaign progression. IMO the T-26 should be before the T-60, as the T-60 is still fairly good at AT, and much better for anti-infantry with it’s 20mm cannon.
Because they can’t truly be accurate to reality.
Real weapons and vehicles have quirks that unfortunately can’t be accurately reflected in game.
As well, real penetration performance is too complex for games.
We can get them as accurate as possible. Weapons ought to have the correct rate of fire, realistic recoil, damage for what they’re shooting (lord knows why 7.62x54mmR does only just more than half the damage coming out of an SVT-38 as compared to a Mosin M91/30…), and any other aspect that can be reasonably represented in the game.
And yes, looking at War Thunder, Enlisted is perfectly capable of handling more complicated penetration mechanics, be it vs armor, or materials.
This game is not Battlefield V. Weapons and equipment should be as grounded in reality as possible, and balancing should be done in the progression, matchmaking, or maps. This was always meant to be an asymmetrically balanced game anyway. Germans should have clear advantages in some aspects, just as Soviet Union should in others, and likewise with their disadvantages.
RoF is literally the only thing you listed that can reasonably be accurately reflected, and that’s still only for automatics and the upper limit of semi automatics.
I’m saying we’re also taking into account weapons and vehicles with real downsides that we wouldn’t be seeing in game.
“realism” in this context usually means “the perfect on-paper performance and not real performance”
Like how the SVT was very finnicky and not at all suited to be used by the average Soviet soldier.
The difference between reality and reality in games is that in games stuff only has to feel real and fun. Whether it actually makes sense or is actually realistic, is second to that.
For example it isn’t very realistic for a bolt action to magically do more damage, but it feels realistic and fun for the slower firing gun to pack more of a punch.
The other issue is all german soldiers seem to be on steroids
Sniper K98 reloads it’s empty mag 3 times faster than M91/30 does. Even if reloading bullet-by-bullet is based on soldier’s experience and not rifle quality
So you are fine with this abysmal damage they deal
When I complained how Semi auto is much worse than bolt action and should deal 12 dmg instead of 8.5 dmg I received a lot of positive feedback.
The problem is that just by putting LMG on semi-auto mode, player can have a better semi-auto rifle than the actual semi-auto.
So that’s why semis should have similar stats as LMG’s. This will make them still worse than bolt actions on long range but also more usable at other ranges
I never looked at the SVT in it’s current state and did not know they dealt 8.5 damage and thought it did as much as the LMG. 12 damage should be fine, yeah.
Semi’s should just be lighter LMGs that cant fire full auto, have smaller but faster reloading mags. Then they are fine.
Like war thunder, it’s so much harder to throw tracks in-game than irl.
There’s also the huge oversight that suspensions can’t take damage, even though they’ll still block your shots.
Shooting the suspension when you couldn’t penetrate armor was also done irl, even by tanks, as that was the only way Italian tanks could disable Shermans.
But you are ok with 30 min of repairing tracks? You have strange value system in my opinion.
Anyway it was a joke. Realism is good but game is meant to be fun. I wouldn’t like to play a game where I have to walk for 20 min just to get instantly sniped because it’s realistic
