AA batteries
I don’t like how engineer works. Building tank
traps and sandbags is OK but building 2cm AA batteries is too much. It will be much better if we get AA vehicles instead and AA batteries could be positioned at team spawn point. If an AA battery is destroyed, engineer can fix it. On invasion mode, AA is positioned on all spawns, when defenders lose a capture point, attackers can fix and use defenders own AA batteries. Soviet team should not have access to 2cm AA because they never used it. Soviet teams instead get access to 4x PV-1 (or maxim) AA battery.
*Anti-tank rifles"
Ptrs-41 should not be available before ptrd. Both ptrd and ptrs weight around 15-17 kilograms which is too heavy for a normal soldier and even a muscular guy will have troubles aiming and shooting without laying on the ground. All AT rifles should only be available to be used when laying down.
Pz-3B
It never fought in Moscow. All Pz-3B’s were removed from battlefields before 1941.
Tank movement
All tanks (except Ba-11) should be able to cross over trenches, right now every tank in the game gets stuck
Both ptrd and ptrs weight around 15-17 kilograms which is too heavy for a normal soldier and even a muscular guy will have troubles aiming and shooting without laying on the ground.
Im totally ok with the fact that the Engie can build AA structures, its a powerful turret that actually gives infantry a way of fighting aircraft, its also powerful against infantry but can be easily taken out by a grenade or Tank.
I agree with you that these tanks should be better at crossing trenches (unless of course its an anti tank trench)
I don’t mind the fact that certain aspects of the game are unrealistic. This isn’t a “Hardcore” shooter and if they wanted to make a hyper realistic hardcore shooter the devs shouldn’t have made the game free to play, mainly because realistic shooters usually don’t have progression systems because the weapons are not designed to be balanced. For example in a game like Post Scriptum, most players on the US team get access to the M1 Garand, an objectively better weapon in every stat than the Kar98. Only about 3-4 German players per team get a rifle on par with the Garand (G43). This works in P.S. because, Everyone gets access to the same guns regardless of how much they play, the gun you use is entirely based on the team your on and class your playing, and the devs can only afford this system because Its a pay to play game that doesn’t have to get players to pay for premium accounts. If the Enlisted devs implemented a system of realistic damage models for infantry weapons they would have to worry about making everything balanced, so the game doesn’t become pay to win, while also making everything realistic, despite the fact that making everything balanced would be unrealistic.
TL:DR the devs cant do alot of the things other hardcore shooters do because the game is free to play, the most they can do is to make sure that the weapons for each campaign are limited to ones available in the time period, and that’s ok, because as a battlefield esque game, its pretty decent, it just needs more content, performance fixes, and larger maps
BA-11 was never used in moscow either according to some sources another forum member found.
I’m sure that the russian flakvierling is a placeholder.
While building AA batteries is unrealistic, there needs to be a counter for planes, and idk whether repairing an AA gun in a fixed location (meaning air players can just counter it by repeatedly strafing or bombing it) would do the trick
M1 garand better than kar98 in real life? Idk man I was always a fan of bolt action rifles. An interesting fact is that a lot of armies didn’t like using semi auto guns. For example, when SVT-38 came out, most soldiers hated it because mosin has better accuracy and doesn’t require cleaning
The SVT is a different gun, IRL M1 garands usually had similar accuracy than the Kar 98k. This of course varies based on the gun but both usually had a 2 MOA on average (any Garand that shot worse than 4 was considered defective), they shot a very similar round, both capable of equally ruining your day, and the Garand had a larger magazine and fire rate, hence why it is better in any stat that would matter in a video game.
Another reason could be they already had millions of Mosins.
It is similar between the PTRD and PTRS. The PTRD was just dirt cheap to make and it got the job done. Sure, they preferred the PTRS, but that didnt mean they wouldnt discard the stuff they already had, and were capable of producing in large numbers, just like with the mosin vs SVT
It’s not about quantities. Russian soldiers liked mosin more than SVT and most veterans and “heroes” were using either mosin carabin or mosin 1890/30. I’m just saying that Semi-auto rifles were not better in every way than bolt action. It is mostly a shooters choice.
I never heard it was bad. Actually quite the opposite. A lot of people said it was a good and reliable gun. Funny story, My grandfather used it for hunting and he always says “these modern guns are nothing compared to real rifles”. Famous sniper shooters of ww2 used scoped mosins. I watched YouTube videos where the rifle was tested and it showed great results. All These evidence mixed together, I can proudly say mosin was a good gun
Poorly trained conscripts did not like SVT because reliability and maintenance of gas operated firearms is much more difficult than manually operated ones.
SVT-40 also fixed issues that were present in SVT-38.
Mosin-Nagant quality varied by when and where production took place. There were Imperial Russian Mosins, refurbished Finnish Mosins, even American Mosin rifles. “Famous Snipers” were given rifles best of the production run that would produce best MOA. Biggest problem with Mosin are stiff bolts and clips which need to be manually removed after loaded.
Overall I would say Mauser action is superior considering the fact it is Mauser design which is reproduced in bolt action rifles today and not Mosin.
