Why the hell does the MP40 at Stalingrad have nerfed rate of fire along with the recoil nerf?

Could you explain me why one of my favourite and iconic smg the MP40 has been garbaged by the genius devs since the release of Stalingrad? It has been nerfed from 520-570 to 460-510 rate of fire with a max stars along with the recoil nerf, was it really necessary? In the meantime every other smg have their rate of fire untouched. What sort of “balance” is this shit? What’s the project?


Seems you must be new here.
The goal is to nerf the axis so that after a while, they’ll be fighting IS-3s with wooden spears.


something something stress something something rust something something it all make sense.
-cit keofox



Wanted to call BS first but checked and you are right xD devs pulled a sneaky on the krauts yet again

1 Like

Because the united allied front in this forum:
Allied players
thinks that Axis weapons are way too powerful.
Next thing russian mains need to have at Stalingrad:
Soviet wants


They are very often doing sneaky (and useless) change but what I don’t understand is why nerf the MP40? What’s the point to nerf this and ONLY THIS WEAPON when there are better smg? Literally no logic.


its just like when they hit semis for no reason





Stalingrad is a test field. Most weapons have a larger recoil, and many guns fire slower than elsewhere, but there are exceptions who look drastically faster (ZH-29). Soviet weapons are no exception. The goal is only conjecture, they probably want to weaken automatic weapons in general.
If you don’t like it, you’ll be in trouble, because this gunplyay may be the case in other campaigns.

I’m not in trouble with the gameplay at all, I know every weapons recoil have been adjusted but it’s not about that, I’m just saying the rate of fire of the mp40 has been nerfed for no reason like it was a god tier weapon before that lol. Does the other weapon had their rate of fire reduced? Literally no so why the mp40 rof should be nerfed?


Proper fix would be weapons having real life stats and limiting the amount of weapons available to use.

Why rifles were more popular than smg’s? Longer range? Lack of close combat? Manufacturing? Lack of technology in the start of war?

you know what’s funny is that i know someone that reached over 100 kills with pretty much only the kreigsmodell and he’s 13 years old :rofl:

Tbh, when/if they implement most of the schizo bs gunplay from Stalingrad, at least for me that will be a final reason to move on from this game. No regrets, finally freedom.


nope, we won that

not even close to that, he probably has about 24 hours, at most 48 with long breaks. so with that being said the major issue that plagues the axis is unironically a skill issue.

I can’t describe what I would like to write you so much

historical fact. Allies won the Second World War not because of quality and penetration, but because of a ratio of 10 to 1

1 Like

that is definitely not true at the end of the war where german steel was on the poorer end of the spectrum, there is also the fact that the america didn’t send tanks over if it was proven unreliable in the field which is why it took so long for the pershing to be sent to europe

Cause you had 6/9 man FG42 squad spam?

Yeah, having literally no skilled teamates unless I myself find them is a big issue. Especially when the allies always have high level players.
But the gear is a problem as well. Pretty sure we can both agree that in most campaigns axis gets worse stuff. Those being Moscow, Berlin and Tunisia. So nerfing the MP40 in Stalingrad only confirms my theory. And this equipment gap is most noticable with early equipment, which actually causes this huge skill/population gap between the 2 sides.
Also, I doubt you have any proof of this right? So this whole argument could just be made up.


Here you have your answer. If we had the same amount of Soldiers, Allies wouldnt arrive the end of War.

Haha not in a million years, and at most I have bought 5 fg42s in Berlin plus the one you get for free , so most of my kills were done with random ass weapons like vg2, vg1-5, mp40s, the drilling (yes I have assaulters 1 with shotgun secondaries), g43, mp35, both kar98ks, bf109g-6 bombs and the mg42. At the end of that battle I had almost double the kills of their first place.

The only time Better equipment truly matters is with tanks while for infantry equipment it’s mostly about skill since a bad player will preform horribly with good equipment while good players can preform well with bad equipment. But hey if you want to go this route then axis smgs tend to be more accurate than allied ones with the only one more accurate than the 20 round beretta is the m1928 tommy at .68 versus .72 of the 20 round(the 40 round one has one of .76 and Soviets most accurate is the ppd-40 at .80). Not going to go into the lmg debate since that has been covered to death by now. Tanks are up in the air with the only truly bad tanks are the 4J and the Italian ones. Bolt actions and semi autos are more or less the same though there a semi auto that is better than the allied one at the same lvl; that semi auto is the Italian one with the only thing m1c has going for it is the rof. CAS planes are pretty balanced with allied ones usually slightly smaller payloads but will be good for air superiority while axis ones will have a large AOE effect now axis fighters are almost certainly better for CAS especially the bf109s with average air superiority abilities while for the allies it’s a bit of a toss up.

You mean like this?

Oh their top guy had the is-1 and still lost in here;

If you are talking about early war then French tanks and British tanks were better armored, Britain’s navy was better and had radar. If talking about middle of the war then the Churchills, Matildas, t-34s and kv-1s were very much an issue for the Germans and remember that German equipment was heavily overengineered too