Its stats would be identical to the pre nerf type 99 lmg, also it would still be br3. If the Devs wanted to put in the extra effort they could change the model to have the gas ports at a higher settings.
gas port debate
Some people might say why shouldn’t the tech tree type 99 be given it’s original high rpm and to that I’d say…
The type 96 and type 99 lmg both have their gas ports set on low settings, so it wouldn’t make sense to have the type 99 have 200 higher rof than the type 96 when their gas ports are only 1 setting different.
Do you want to see a event type 99 with a higher rpm?
The debate is pointless since the game cant balance high rate of fire weapons infantry weapons with high rate of fire are not desirable the reason for the Gasport is like on ZB -30 or the M60 machine gun the gas port is to better control the recoil and the rate of fire is not a desirable when it goes up exactly opposite to game logic in reality you would prefer to shoot weapons with between 500 and 800 rate of fire unless is vehicle mounted gun. In reality you dont wanna operate a high rate of fire weapon as a handled weapon that you need to carry and shoot specially if it has a magazine if its stationed gun then yes you can go higher but even M60 had a gas port exactly for this reason depending on the purpose you gonna use it you will change the gas port sadly in many weapon games rate of fire means better weapon however in real life is not like that.
The easiest way to explain gas ports is just take M240 machine gun manual. Its funny how it all started from Type 96 and Type 99 and ZB. Very similar gas port adjustable system not all LMGs have it. For some guns you literally need to disassemble the gun to do it.
I mean they can just give it optic and it can be saved. This rate of fire nerf without plan how to make this iconic gun good was not a good decision since all we got more KE7 use while in the past some people prefer Type 99 now all use KE7 I dont know how this made the game more ‘‘realistic’’
The Japanese used the type 99 and type 96 at the same rpm, the type 99 was just a type 96 in a different calibre. The guns in the tech tree should be shown how they were used, and event guns should be field mods or exceptions to the rule.
This is typical paper historian mind set the rate of fire increase is not intentional but it something that happens with this type of gun all the time since they dont have exact rate of fire. The rate of fire was between 550 and 850 + and this is the realistic rate of fire in combat use not some paper document. The gas port is made to control the recoil the rate of fire change is simply how physics works so realistically it can have all the rate of fire between 550 and 850+ since that’s how it was used depending what the operator was planning to use it for and the ammo also maybe he will load HE ammo maybe different type again you must change the gas port.
Troops were taught how to use the gun with documents, they would be told to use a gun on a certain setting to achieve the best results and conserve ammo, that’s why the standard version on the type 99 should be shown with it’s intended rpm and an event variant can present the gun how soilders could have used it.
No where in the manual there is a suggestion that the gun should be used on port 1 since it makes no sense since so I will load armor pricing ammo or HE ammo on it and I will use it on Gasport 1 ? Or I dont like the rate of fire its adjustable gas port there is manual online it just shows the gas port its not showing you not to change it. There is many reasons you are thought to change the gas port in training same like M240 this entire idea that they trained soldiers not to change it its a myth made by historians that never used similar weapon.
The manuel and documents both claim the type 99 and type 96 had the same rpm, why would they claim they had a rpm which was never used.
Besides in game both guns are on low gas port settings so they should have the lower rpm.
The gas port is adjustable if you gonna use it as general purpose machine gun you will put it on higher gas port since you will be stationary if you squad gonna be advancing you will put it on lower since you will be moving all the time and you wont be able to control it on higher gas port really M240 is a typical example of how such weapons like Type 99 and ZB 30 where used in world war 2.
I don’t know where you got that information, can you show me where a Japanese document says that was their doctorine? But assuming it’s true I’d still be right because the type 99 the infantry use is on the move so it should be on the lower gas port settings, if Enlisted added emplaced type 99s like the mg42s on the d-day map they’d then use the higher gas ports according to you.
I got it from M240 since I operated it and I’m absolutely sure 100% that with Type 99 is the same since it has the same feature. The adjustable gas port is used on all weapons of this type for the same purpose to control the recoil depending on your mission.
Thats why they have this stupid debate but in reality the rate of fire depended how much recoil the operator will prefer depending for what he will use the weapon for.
The m240 is a gun from the 1980 ish, the type 99 is a gun from the 1930-40s. The m240 is a belt fed gun made using the lessons from the m60 and all older mgs. This really is an apples to oranges comparison, the guns are from different eras and both had different doctorines for their use. I don’t think your expertise will transfer to a ww2 gun that was operated by a much less advanced force than a modern counterpart.
Even nations in ww2 had different doctorines, imagine how different a modern forces doctrine is to a ww2 force.
Its not it has the same feature why will they put adjustable gas port on a gun …really historians should start testing things not believe some paper doctrine. They should really reintroduce army service for this paper worms.
It doesn’t matter if historians test if the type 99 coluld fire at the high rpm. Because if the type 99 wasn’t used with the higher rpm (like all Japanese documents from the time claim) then that’s how it should be presented.
