The rifles and balancing?

[roosterhung]

Originally Posted by Tokugawa77

So the Wehrmacht squad, which was built around k98-equiped riflemen, sucked too? The US was really the only nation in ww2 to widely adopt semi-automatics. This isn't really as big an advantage as it initially appears, imo, because though there is more firepower, aimed shots with a garand for example wouldn't be that much faster than that of a type 99 arisaka. From personal experience (playing hos haha) I prefer bolt-actions to semis anyway.

German squads have mp40 and mg42 to make up for their fire power. Japanese squads don't have any SMGs at their disposal, while some don't even have an LMG.

[MeFirst]

I think that is a bit of a myth.

[Tokugawa77]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

also, bayonette

Yes put a bayonet on every and I mean EVERY japanese weapon. Balance issues all sorted out right there. Who can stand up to a Nambu-mounted bayonet?

Originally Posted by roosterhung

German squads have mp40 and mg42 to make up for their fire power. Japanese squads don't have any SMGs at their disposal, while some don't even have an LMG.

The Type 99 lmg was more common than is given credit. But you have a point about the lack of an smg

[roosterhung]

Originally Posted by Tokugawa77

The Type 99 lmg was more common than is given credit. But you have a point about the lack of an smg

While the Japanese had their arisaka, type 99 LMG, the Americans had M1 Grand, Thompson, M1 carbines, BAR, and 30 cal on a platoon level. Although the Japanese do had the type 92 HMG, it was extremely heavy and required 3 men to carry the thing about. That is why it was mostly used as a defensive weapon in the pacific (Think about carrying that thing in thick jungles). This is why the Japanese could never beat the Americans in a head to head firefight (not to even mention American tank and air supports). I'm not saying that the Japanese soldiers were completely useless. They made up for their disadvantages by good usage of terrain, infiltration, night attacks, good camouflage, booby traps, and a determined mindset.

[Tokugawa77]

Originally Posted by roosterhung

While the Japanese had their arisaka, type 99 LMG, the Americans had M1 Grand, Thompson, M1 carbines, BAR, and 30 cal on a platoon level. Although the Japanese do had the type 92 HMG, it was extremely heavy and required 3 men to carry the thing about. That is why it was mostly used as a defensive weapon in the pacific (Think about carrying that thing in thick jungles). This is why the Japanese could never beat the Americans in a head to head firefight (not to even mention American tank and air supports). I'm not saying that the Japanese soldiers were completely useless. They made up for their disadvantages by good usage of terrain, infiltration, night attacks, good camouflage, booby traps, and a determined mindset.

Fair enough. The only point I was trying to make was that the myth that all japanese guns were crap is just that- a myth. A lack of weaponry does not imply the inferiority of existing weaponry. Basically, a springfield is no better than an Arisaka, and I personally would tentatively take a Type99 lmg over a BAR.

[RoastinGhost]

Originally Posted by Jorg Biermann

Well Darkest Hour had M1 Garands Vs K98s and that was balanced..

Never balance weapons... Just balance maps.

Originally Posted by PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN

It wasn't really. The Germans get slaughtered in every map, which is why the majority of maps have the Americans attacking and the Germans attempting to hold out for the time limit. They also get a lot more reinforcements as a general rule. There's a reason that there are so many objectives to take in most of the maps...

Balance was something I had a lot of difficulty with in that game too. I didn't want to unrealistically nerf any weapons, but at the same time I didn't want to completely break things for the German side. The map solution worked to an extent, but if kills/deaths were displayed on the scoreboard you might be horrified at how badly the Americans wipe the floor with their superior rifles.

I was just playing Ostfront and DH today and I thought of this- I think that bolt action rifles are significantly worse weapons in those games compared to HoS. I say this because of two things- in HoS you can reload them manually, and more importantly, the bolting in RO2 is much faster/animated less extremely.

So, I don't think the difference between the Garand-havers and the poor souls without it will be as big as it was in darkest hour.
Thoughts?

[MeFirst]

It wasn't really. The Germans get slaughtered in every map,

Excuse me, are we playing the same game? Steam says I have over 531 hours of DH played so I guess I am kinda qualified talking about the maps and the balance of DH. I would say that if you look at the total picture the germans have the better weapons.

The MP40 is as good as the thompson on close range but better on longer ranges and also clearly better as the sten or the grease gun.

The MG34 and 42 are better as the allied mg's if you ask me.

The Axis have not realling something like the Bren or the BAR. I guess the closest thing would be the FG42 but you rarely see this weapon. This is a plus for the allied side but usually the axis have more mg's or smg's.

The G43 is not as good as the Garand (personal view) because it has more recoul as the Garand but it can be pretty effective and I think it is a bit more precise as the garand on longer ranges.

The Axis have better grenades.

The Axis have a kinda superior mortar. It can also shoot on extreme close range and the shells make way more damage on infantry. The allied mortar can shoot longer but usually this is never used on the maps because mortars usually sit at a spawn exit or at a supply point and so you dont have to max out the range.

Axis usually have better tanks.

Axis have the panzerfaust.

So much for the weapons...

There are a lot of maps which are clearly not balanced to the favor or the allied team. Check maps like Hill 400 you will rarely see this map being won by the allied team. There are also other maps which are pretty much just a slaughterfest for the axis (pretty much all the beach maps). When the axis are defending they usually have very good positions and if they do their job good they can pin down the allied team completly for a long time. Those are the maps where the allied team itself need to be good and people need to do rheir jobs properly.

[roosterhung]

Originally Posted by MeFirst

Excuse me, are we playing the same game? Steam says I have over 531 hours of DH played so I guess I am kinda qualified talking about the maps and the balance of DH. I would say that if you look at the total picture the germans have the better weapons.

The MP40 is as good as the thompson on close range but better on longer ranges and also clearly better as the sten or the grease gun.

The MG34 and 42 are better as the allied mg's if you ask me.

The Axis have not realling something like the Bren or the BAR. I guess the closest thing would be the FG42 but you rarely see this weapon. This is a plus for the allied side but usually the axis have more mg's or smg's.

The G43 is not as good as the Garand (personal view) because it has more recoul as the Garand but it can be pretty effective and I think it is a bit more precise as the garand on longer ranges.

The Axis have better grenades.

The Axis have a kinda superior mortar. It can also shoot on extreme close range and the shells make way more damage on infantry. The allied mortar can shoot longer but usually this is never used on the maps because mortars usually sit at a spawn exit or at a supply point and so you dont have to max out the range.

Axis usually have better tanks.

Axis have the panzerfaust.

So much for the weapons...

There are a lot of maps which are clearly not balanced to the favor or the allied team. Check maps like Hill 400 you will rarely see this map being won by the allied team. There are also other maps which are pretty much just a slaughterfest for the axis (pretty much all the beach maps). When the axis are defending they usually have very good positions and if they do their job good they can pin down the allied team completly for a long time. Those are the maps where the allied team itself need to be good and people need to do rheir jobs properly.

Exactly, it wasn't only about the rifles. Although the German rifle could not match the M1 Garand, they had other weapons that are superior to their Allie counterparts. So DH was balanced in a way.

The problem with RS is that the Japanese will not have many weapon choices, also most of the Japanese weapons were inferior to the American weapons. So it'll be interesting to see how what the developers will do to balance the game, especially in maps where the Japanese are the attackers.

Historically, almost all of the Japanese ground offensives (besides the earlier ones) were complete failures. Just look at the Battle for Henderson Field, now that is what you call a slaughter.

[Tokugawa77]

Originally Posted by roosterhung

The problem with RS is that the Japanese will not have many weapon choices, also most of the Japanese weapons were inferior to the American weapons. So it'll be interesting to see how what the developers will do to balance the game, especially in maps where the Japanese are the attackers.

Historically, almost all of the Japanese ground offensives (besides the earlier ones) were complete failures. Just look at the Battle for Henderson Field, now that is what you call a slaughter.

Most Japanese offensives took place early in the war, and these were resounding successes. They inflicted the greatest military defeats that Britian or the US had experienced up until that point (the Malaysian campaign and Bataan, respectively). This was due mainly to the Allies underestimating the Japanese and leaving inexperienced and poorly equiped garrisons to fend off Japanese divisions that had been hardened by five years of war in China. The American forces in the Philipines, for example, were armed mostly with springfields, not garands, and so there goes a major balancing issue with most of the maps that the Japanese would be attacking on. From Guadalcanal onwards, the Japanese fought a defensive war on the Pacific front, and so for these maps they will have better defensive positions. It actually fits together quite nicely- when that Japanese attack, they have almost equal weaponry, but when they defend, it is outclassed by the US.

[RicoTx]

Originally Posted by Tokugawa77

Most Japanese offensives took place early in the war, and these were resounding successes. They inflicted the greatest military defeats that Britian or the US had experienced up until that point (the Malaysian campaign and Bataan, respectively). This was due mainly to the Allies underestimating the Japanese and leaving inexperienced and poorly equiped garrisons to fend off Japanese divisions that had been hardened by five years of war in China. The American forces in the Philipines, for example, were armed mostly with springfields, not garands, and so there goes a major balancing issue with most of the maps that the Japanese would be attacking on. From Guadalcanal onwards, the Japanese fought a defensive war on the Pacific front, and so for these maps they will have better defensive positions. It actually fits together quite nicely- when that Japanese attack, they have almost equal weaponry, but when they defend, it is outclassed by the US.

Very good points! If you read the interviews done with the Dev's, they claim that the game will be pretty balanced out overall in the end.

[MeFirst]

Exactly.

Also not to mention that the supply-siutation for the american forces was also far from being perfect in a lot of battles. This changed when the american navy defeated the japanese navy and also when they got air supriority.

[Trotskygrad]

Originally Posted by MeFirst

Excuse me, are we playing the same game? Steam says I have over 531 hours of DH played so I guess I am kinda qualified talking about the maps and the balance of DH. I would say that if you look at the total picture the germans have the better weapons.

The MP40 is as good as the thompson on close range but better on longer ranges and also clearly better as the sten or the grease gun.

The MG34 and 42 are better as the allied mg's if you ask me.

The Axis have not realling something like the Bren or the BAR. I guess the closest thing would be the FG42 but you rarely see this weapon. This is a plus for the allied side but usually the axis have more mg's or smg's.

The G43 is not as good as the Garand (personal view) because it has more recoul as the Garand but it can be pretty effective and I think it is a bit more precise as the garand on longer ranges.

The Axis have better grenades.

The Axis have a kinda superior mortar. It can also shoot on extreme close range and the shells make way more damage on infantry. The allied mortar can shoot longer but usually this is never used on the maps because mortars usually sit at a spawn exit or at a supply point and so you dont have to max out the range.

Axis usually have better tanks.

Axis have the panzerfaust.

So much for the weapons...

There are a lot of maps which are clearly not balanced to the favor or the allied team. Check maps like Hill 400 you will rarely see this map being won by the allied team. There are also other maps which are pretty much just a slaughterfest for the axis (pretty much all the beach maps). When the axis are defending they usually have very good positions and if they do their job good they can pin down the allied team completly for a long time. Those are the maps where the allied team itself need to be good and people need to do rheir jobs properly.

did you seriously just diss the grease gun? that gun is epically good on most DH maps, .45 power with the controllability of a MP40...

[MeFirst]

It is not bad but from my perspective the mp40 is overall better (and more likely to be on the field in higher numbers).

[r5cya]

Originally Posted by MeFirst

It is not bad but from my perspective the mp40 is overall better (and more likely to be on the field in higher numbers).

mp40's in the south pacific?

[MeFirst]

We were talking about the mp40 in Darkest Hour.

[El Conejo Peligroso]

So, yeah, maybe it will be harder being Japanese. Big surprise. We will have to use cammo, stealth, and teamwork instead of hiding behind maps stacked ridiculously agaisnt the allies like in DH.

[Trotskygrad]

Originally Posted by El Conejo Peligroso

So, yeah, maybe it will be harder being Japanese. Big surprise. We will have to use cammo, stealth, and teamwork instead of hiding behind maps stacked ridiculously agaisnt the allies like in DH.

Right, let's lay it out here:

Japanese:

Pros:
- Better melee capability (bayonets on everything)
- Better camouflage (harder to see on most maps)
- Arisaka has less recoil
- Defensive positions
- Lighter weapons.
- Type 99 > BAR (should be, like how the Bren essentially was better than the BAR)

Cons:
- Rare automatics (SMGs and LMGs)
- No semi-auto rifles

Americans:

Pros:
- Semi-auto rifles and carbines
- SMGs are more common
- Automatics are more common in general
- Higher powered rifle cartridges

Cons:
- Offensive on most maps.
- Heavier weapons.
- Worse camo.

I think it's fairly balanced.

[El Conejo Peligroso]

Yeah, I think so too.

Everything looks pretty good except the m1 carbine can't have more recoil than the arisaka, and also not that much less than the m1 garand since the gas operating system and wieght of the rifle combine to make its recoil minimum for a 30/06 round.

Although I can't say for sure since I have never shot an Arisaka before, but by guess would be it would be somewhere between the m1 carbine and the m1 garand.

[Trotskygrad]

Originally Posted by El Conejo Peligroso

Yeah, I think so too.

Everything looks pretty good except the m1 carbine can't have more recoil than the arisaka, and also not that much less than the m1 garand since the gas operating system and wieght of the rifle combine to make its recoil minimum for a 30/06 round.

Although I can't say for sure since I have never shot an Arisaka before, but by guess would be it would be somewhere between the m1 carbine and the m1 garand.

M1 carbine can be slightly weaker than the MkB, around SMG damage... that should balance it.

Also, RIFLE GRENADES would make it rather interesting. Unlike on the eastern front, I think both sides fielded rifle grenades in quantity.

[Tokugawa77]

Originally Posted by El Conejo Peligroso

Yeah, I think so too.

Everything looks pretty good except the m1 carbine can't have more recoil than the arisaka, and also not that much less than the m1 garand since the gas operating system and wieght of the rifle combine to make its recoil minimum for a 30/06 round.

Although I can't say for sure since I have never shot an Arisaka before, but by guess would be it would be somewhere between the m1 carbine and the m1 garand.

The Arisaka (at least the type 99) fires a similar round to the Mosin Nagant, so it has a pretty substantial kick. Yes, gas operated rifles tend to deal with recoil better as well, since the energy produced from the reaction is used to chamber the next round, rather than going straight into your shoulder.