How are riflemen going to be balanced?

lol love the compairason with orcs

FoulOleRon said:

The Type 38 was 6.5mm but the Type 99 introduced in 1939 was 7.7mm after they found the Type 38 lacking during their war with China (especially at range). Granted both versions were used by troops throughout WWII as they never made enough 99s to completely replace the 38s so we might see both in the game.

The Type 99 wasn't an inaccurate weapon unless we're talking about the last ditch batches which were rubbish - similar to last ditch K98s. The 7.7mm round wouldn't deliver the same stopping power as the 30.06 but if we're talking about 100-300m engagement ranges a 7.7mm round would deliver good stopping power.

Click to expand...

7.7 vs 30-06
The difference is 3,000 to 4,000 joules here and about 400fps. For gaming purposes, the different wont be noticeable, but in real life nothing can even scratch 30-06.

The 30-06 Sprg rd is like a light 300 magnum, capable of 3200fps, nearly 3x the speed of sound.

Falc.be said:

Actually it does. a semi automatic has more moving parts wich cause vibrations, the bullets pick this up and bounces arround in the barrel. this in turn will slightly alter the trajectory once the bullet leaves the barrel.

first choice of sniper rifles is still a decent bolt action rifle (manufactured with much smaller tolerances but thats besides the point)

Click to expand...

That may be the case for foreign war time made semi auto rifles. But is nowhere the case with the M1 rifle.
M1's gas port was towards the end of the barrel, meaning velocities would remain more or less consistent. Ive managed 2 MOA groups out ot 300yds with my 1950s M1.
Moving parts behind the chamber are irrelevant unless they damage the round itself and push the bullet back into the casing on chambering, only that will increase pressures and give a higher trajectory to the bullet.

Hypno Toad said:

I facepalm inside my mind every time I see people complain about this.

Just about all games have an internal "health" value of 100... or 0 to 1 if you want to get technical (0 being dead and 1 being completely healthy) and depending on which hitbox you hit (chest, arms, elgs, etc) a damage multiplier is applied. so maybe 2x for chest, and 5x for head, 1x for legs and 0.5x for hands and feet.

You cant "balance" the difference between 2600 and 2900 J. The damage formula doesn't give a damn if the damage difference between a 30-06 and 6.5mm is "5". For instance, If somebody gets shot in the chest by a 30-06 and it's 65 damage, that 2x multplier goes off and they die. If somebody gets shot in the chest with a 6.5mm and it does 60 damage, the 2x multiplier goes off and they die.

There's a numerical difference, but unless you are repeatedly shooting somebody in the foot, its never going to make a difference. The only alternative would be to make the 6.5mm do really poor damage, but needing to shoot people in the chest twice with the arisaka every time would hardly be fair or realistic.

Thats really a lot like real life when it comes down to it.. most people aren't going to notice the difference between 300 J and an extra 100 m/s when they've got a gaping, shattered hole in their chest.

"Oh I got hit with a 30-06 instead of 6.5mm, I guess I should be more dead than I am already"

Click to expand...

Where the hell are you getting 2,900 Joules? A basic M2 ball (WW2 load) of 150grs going 2,900 fps is pushing into nearly 4,000 joules. Its bordering on the line with light magnums.
The old 6.5mm Jap had a mere 2,600 joules with a 139gr bullet.
This whole debate began with trying to compare US rifles to Jap rifles.
The only valid argument to be made is that 1 hit from an M1 kills you the same as 1 hit from a bolt action.

CommissarLampshade said:

This only becomes a factor at very long ranges when you're talking about weapons built to the highest standard, like some dedicated sniper rifles. A typical M1 Garand is going to be just as accurate as a typical M1903, K98, Lee-Enfield, or Arisaka. The Garand was accurate enough for sniping purposes as well as evident by the M1C and M1D variants.

The weaponry and optics available to snipers has changed dramatically since WWII, but today the choice between semi-auto and bolt action often depends upon the terrain.

Regarding the 6.5x50mm ammunition used by the Arisaka, the caliber/dimensions was not a problem. For typical combat ranges it was certainly lethal and accurate enough. Yet the design and shape of the actual bullet could have been better. It would have probably been better for the Japanese to switch to improved/modified 6.5x50mm ammunition instead of switching calibers entirely.

Click to expand...

Once again, the M1 has far more advantages up its sleeves than both the 03 Springfield, any Enfield or Mauser 98k.


Why? Non adjustable sights. Windage had to be held off on axis, Russian and Japanese rifles, the rear sight slide was often wobbly and of 19th century design.
The M1 reigned unaltered in the competition field following both the Korean and Vietnam wars...why? Adjustable sights and superior ballistics.


The V/U notch sights on the mentioned bolt actions had roughly 22inches (1903) 20 inches (98k) of sight radius...the M1 had 28 inches, and was the only rifle of that bunch to have long radius peep sights adjustable in 1 MOA clicks. The 1903 series were top of the line bolt actions that also had mre features to them than either of the axis or British rifles.


The 6.5mm was a flat based slower flying bullet, with less punch in thick foliage and on top of everything else it was cupro nickel. Compare that with the boat tail FMJ M1 ball (match round) and the M2 ball the Marines were shooting with prior long range experience and training.

Saying a 1,000yard match capable rifle such as the M1 is on par with any other rifle of its era is a joke

ok so i read the first page of this thread, and then skipped over the 2nd page.

what about the other guns the marines usedi nthe beginning? should those be added too?
the johnson m41 rifle would be interesting to use (or the johnson 30cal LMG)
maybe the u.d. m42?

didnt the japanese have a copy of the pedersen rifle?
i know they had a copy of the m1 (7.7 type 5) but i dont remember which year it was made.
they had a few smg's used, the bergman 1920, and type100 (2 variants), all in 8mm.

my grandfather was in the pacific theatre, and he always said the sights on the m1 garands were worthless, you would zero on friday, shoot on saturday, and on monday you cant hit squat.
but that might be from the early variants of the rifle issued when he was there, considering the m1 had tons of teething problems during its development/testing phase.

ro_sauce said:

ok so i read the first page of this thread, and then skipped over the 2nd page.

what about the other guns the marines usedi nthe beginning? should those be added too?
the johnson m41 rifle would be interesting to use (or the johnson 30cal LMG)
maybe the u.d. m42?

didnt the japanese have a copy of the pedersen rifle?
i know they had a copy of the m1 (7.7 type 5) but i dont remember which year it was made.
they had a few smg's used, the bergman 1920, and type100 (2 variants), all in 8mm.

my grandfather was in the pacific theatre, and he always said the sights on the m1 garands were worthless, you would zero on friday, shoot on saturday, and on monday you cant hit squat.
but that might be from the early variants of the rifle issued when he was there, considering the m1 had tons of teething problems during its development/testing phase.

Click to expand...

Your grandpa had a terrible armorer and marksmanship coach then. The screws on the sides of the rear sight assembly have to be tightened down, otherwise the peep assembly will be able to slide up and down vertically with the smallest push.

The rifle the Marines finally got was fully tweaked.

Interesting topic!

How light was a regular Japanese outfit, and that of an US Marine/Army guy? Since TWI implemented weight in detail in RO2, RS can make good use of it. I guess a Garand is heavier then an Arisaka? Weren't the Japanese on average smaller and thus lighter? Small differences but hey it does effect gameplay in a realistic way I guess. But I think map layout is going to be the most decisive balancing factor whilst retaining more realistic features!

Smaller and lighter? Ages ago I heard a veteran of Kokoda interviewed on the radio. He thought the same thing before he got there, but the first enemy he came face to face with was an Imperial Marine - a unit with a minimum height requirement of six feet!

Semi Autos are nasty to balance against bolt actions, even war-vets and people studying the effect of automatic weapons can give good insight.

Let us say you walk around a corner and you spot 3 guys.

If you have a bolt action you can kill one of them, then you have to do an action like chambering another round, running to hide, changing to something else, etc.

If you have a semi auto rifle then you just have to re-aim for the next target and fire. Bang bang bang.
If teams are swapped after every match you'll just end up with 1-1 matches as the US will always win with superior fire power.

Teamwork won't help because both teams can have great team work.

From my experience playing Men of War Assault Squads (RTS game), they "balanced" Japan by making a lot of their stuff cheap making them a good rush faction. Their LMG was great as it is designed from the same base the Bren was designed from. Japan's AT rifle; however, is pretty awesome, it was a semi automatic that fired something like .65cal...? I know it was bigger than .50cal
Makes me wonder if the american's get bazookas when the japanese get an AT rifle, 'cause Japan had a type of "panzershrek" too.

Anyway, only thing I can think of that would help japan would be to either give them some extra equipment (maybe a single Anti-personel mine) or increase the cap for their LMG kit. That way their defensive play has more firepower for the US to have to flank.

It wouldn't be the most realistic solution, but early in the war in the Pacific (and correct me if I'm wrong) it wasn't too uncommon to see American GI's using the Springfield 1903 rifle as a regular non-snipers rifle, and the Japanese (though I don't think until later in the war) had an M1 Garand copy (Type 4 rifle), so, again, while not the most realistic, the 1903 Springfield could be issued to American riflemen with the M1 Garand being the elite rifleman weapon, and the Japanese having the Arisaka for riflemen and the Type 4 for elite riflemen.

During the earlier part of the time period we are covering, the marines were far more likely to have the Springfield whilst the army had the Garand thoughout.

There were a few exceptions; particularly for snipers or sniper scouts.

Off the top of my head I think all our early maps are marine maps, but I don't have the list in front of me. So you will certainly see the Springfield, but only in a historically accurate context.

I think you can balance bolt action rifles and semi automatic rifles, like the garand by careful map design. I guess the U.S Team will quite often be the team, that has the role of the attacker on a map. So you could design the maps that the defenders have good positions to defend or even counter attack. But remember the maps still need to be fair.

remove free aim in ironsight from the bolts and poof you have an advantage right there

I hope you choose historical load outs and balance it with the map design. It's worked well for a lot of RO1 and DH maps I think.

Loadouts are going to be by the book.

Rare weapons will be rare, experimental weapons will be absent.

Makes our job harder but I wouldn't like to have it any other way.

Nestor Makhno said:

Loadouts are going to be by the book.

Rare weapons will be rare, experimental weapons will be absent.

Makes our job harder but I wouldn't like to have it any other way.

Click to expand...

:IS2::IS2::IS2::IS2::IS2::IS2: I rate this decision at 6 of 5 IS2s.

I read this while eating lunch and bit the inside of my cheek. It was totally worth it.

Why didn't you do it that way for RO2 right away, MN?

RedFlagWaver said:

Why didn't you do it that way for RO2 right away, MN?

Click to expand...

because he's only hired by TWI and not working with them

My bad! I only saw the initial capital R of Rising Storm and assumed it to mean Red Orchestra.

Scusi!