• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

RS Scandalous amount of Japanese SMGs

@ Mister Virgo, I like you. These people have probably never played the Japanese team and can't understand what a struggle it is to hold an objective. Forget close quarters, the Americans can just mag dump and win.

I generally join the team with fewer people, which almost always means going Japanese currently. Holding an objective is fine with bolt-action rifles. It's taking objectives that's difficult.

Even so, it must be said that while attacking on Hanto or Guadalcanal is a real challenge for Japanese in Classic at the moment, they often reach the last objective and really contest the round despite only having 4 SMGs on their side. The fact that Marines are armed with the Springfield on Guadalcanal in Classic helps, certainly.
 
Upvote 0
What needs to be done:
-nerf T100 damage (8mm nambu is comparable to .380 in energy)
-increase recoil (800 rpm will create insane muzzle rise)
-make 100/44 variant standard, with 100/42 variant unlocked at lvl 50
-no T100s on Guadalcanal (they basically didn't exist yet)
-remove it from SL positions

Now, will TWI do it? No. Will the Japanese apologists try to justify their positions with lame excuses? Yes.
 
Upvote 0
What needs to be done:
1.nerf T100 damage (8mm nambu is comparable to .380 in energy)
2.increase recoil (800 rpm will create insane muzzle rise)
3.make 100/44 variant standard, with 100/42 variant unlocked at lvl 50
4.no T100s on Guadalcanal (they basically didn't exist yet)
5.remove it from SL positions

Now, will TWI do it? No. Will the Japanese apologists try to justify their positions with lame excuses? Yes.

1. It already takes an obscene number of rounds to drop someone with it. I counted 4 minimum excluding headshots. These were all center mass. That's double the maximum like every other gun in realism.

2. Recoil goes backwards into the shoulder more than upwards. Types 100s also had muzzle brakes.
Behold: [url]http://youtu.be/DW9gVEYCfqY?t=37s[/URL]

5. Agree.
 
Upvote 0
2. Recoil goes backwards into the shoulder more than upwards. Types 100s also had muzzle brakes.
Behold: [url]http://youtu.be/DW9gVEYCfqY?t=37s[/URL]

I'm glad we can agree, but using an MG 42 to illustrate SMG recoil probably not the best thing. I've had the opportunity to shoot some fully automatic weapons, and they may appear to have no muzzle rise from a 3rd person perspective, but in fact have quite a bit. Don't think that only the T100 needs more recoil; the BAR has way less recoil than it should.
 
Upvote 0
Also, this is a game - A GAME. Why are we complaining about "There were only this many guns produced, etc etc)? This isn't a military World War 2 simulation. GRANTED, a fair bit of historical accuracy needs to be taken, but a three words called "FUN" and "BALANCE" needs to come first and foremost. Why not complain about the locations (based off real battles) needing to be completely accurate to the real life location, even if it would be greatly one sided? IT'S ALL ABOUT THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY, RIGHT GUISE?

*deep breath and exhale*
tl;dr This thread is bad and you should all feel bad. And if you're gonna state that a weapon should be removed due to lack of production models, then first get the MkB42 out of HOS. THEN you can talk about this one.
/thread :IS2:

You're missing the point. Throughout the interviews and PR leading up to RS's release, the developers promised " asymetrical balance", meaning that instead of simply dumping both teams with equal weapons on two sides of a glorified speedball course, RS would use other battlefield circumstances to ensure that the Japanese have an equal chance to win regardless of their inferior firepower.

What actually we see currently in RS is the opposite of asymetrical balance. It's symetrical balance. Rather than finding other ways to balance the Japanese side, TWI just added more and more SMG's to the Japanese side till they had an equal amount of firepower.

And FYI, tons of people on the forums complained that Mkb-42 should have been removed. It's not that people want the game to be imbalanced, they just want it balanced in an realistic way. In real life, the Germans captured Russian SVT-40's and PPSH's and issued them to their own troops to make up for slow production of MP-40's and G-41's - this could have been easily reflected in HOS. TWI were deadset on including the Stg-44 and G43 in RO2, they should have just picked a late war battle to focus on. Simple.

Germany vs Russia is one of the most naturally balanced parts of WWII, and TWI couldn't even get that right without making blatantly unnecessary concessions to commerial appeal. Now they pick U.S. vs Japan, which is one of the most lopsided areas of the war, promise innovative asymetrical balance, and deliver more of the same hollywood balance. If they were so concerned with mass appeal and didn't mind flubbing realism to make things work, they should have just done yet another U.S. vs Germany game and called it a day.
 
Upvote 0
What needs to be done:
-nerf T100 damage (8mm nambu is comparable to .380 in energy)
-increase recoil (800 rpm will create insane muzzle rise)
-make 100/44 variant standard, with 100/42 variant unlocked at lvl 50
-no T100s on Guadalcanal (they basically didn't exist yet)
-remove it from SL positions

Now, will TWI do it? No. Will the Japanese apologists try to justify their positions with lame excuses? Yes.

This
Big Whoop, Wanna Fight About It? - YouTube

was the first thing that came to mind when I read the end of your post. :D

Now the matter of the points you bring up:

I don't think there's any need to "nerf" the damage output of the Type 100. It takes multiple rounds to reliably drop opponents. I think it's the high rate of fire that makes a flurry of pellets seem so damaging.

The recoil as is seems fine to me. In conjunction with the power of its 8mm pistol round it's a considerable challenge to engage opponents between 50m-100m, and all one will accomplish by shooting at anyone beyond 100m is waste bullets.

The Type 100/44 is the standard variant (unless you're talking about Classic Mode in which case the Type 100/40 with bayonet is what is available). From what I gather of this weapon, both variants can equip bayonets...Deciding which variants to depict in their game is the RS Team's choice, so I'm not too concerned about this point.

I will argue that Type 100/40s can be left on Guadalcanal. A cursory check of information seems to indicate that Type 100/40s began to be issued in early 1942, leading me to conclude that they were likely in use on Guadalcanal. In a way I agree and disagree with you here: I'll say that only the Type 100/40 should be available on this map.

Lastly, I agree with you in that the number of Type 100s should be reduced slightly. As is there are usually 10 of them on an Axis team (give or take 1-2 with various server settings and server population). I would like to see how removing the Type 100 from SLs (and maybe from the CO) would pan out: this would slightly reduce the seemingly unending burden of SLs (and CO) having to do just about everything and emphasize the Assault role as being the one for reliable close-range engagements.
 
Upvote 0
I'm glad we can agree, but using an MG 42 to illustrate SMG recoil probably not the best thing. I've had the opportunity to shoot some fully automatic weapons, and they may appear to have no muzzle rise from a 3rd person perspective, but in fact have quite a bit. Don't think that only the T100 needs more recoil; the BAR has way less recoil than it should.
Type 100 weighs 9 pounds shooting well.. .380.
Weight is a significant factor in felt recoil. a gun that weighs more will soak up more recoil because there is more mass for it to travel.
What you need to understand is that the Type 100 is a heavy sum***** for what it is and it's shooting something that barely breaks the sound barrier. In addition to a muzzle brake this isn't going to be a like a MAC-11. And besides, in game the 800 RPM model can't hit the side of a barn past 100 meters anyway.
Also a BAR is heavy as hell, the recoil is just fine.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Way to make a problem where there isn't one.

1. The game is definitely balanced through a lot asymmetry.
-First booby traps,
-Second the Japanese are on the defensive many maps,
-Third the Japanese attack maps have lots of cover on the attack path while American offense maps lack that,
-Fourth the Japanese usually only have to take a single point which makes arty easier to focus for their commander,
-Fifth the banzai charge allows soldiers of take more bullets,
-Sixth their spawn points tend to be closer to the points they are taking

2. The SMGs clearly aren't there for balance because on realism the Japanese can still win the attack maps and often do.

3. The SMGs are there to balance the weakness of Japanese close combat and put it on par with the Americans, which it does.

I realize the amount of SMGs is ahistorical, but the Americans have Flamethowers when they wouldn't normally, Flamethrowers don't have to brace to shoot and the Japanese have tons more people than would make sense. Its a game designed to be the best recreation of the historical situation, sometimes for the sake of balance and 'fun' going ahistorical is required.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
There are definitely too many Type 100 SMGs in Realism, but removing the excess would cause an imbalance. I propose they remove all but one flamethrower slot and all but one M1919A6 slot for the US faction, then you could remove Type 100 SMG access for the Japanese squad leader class without causing too many problems.

There are way too many flamethrowers running around. It is just annoying to play Japanese and be constantly burnt to a crisp, particularly on Iwo Jima. As for the M1919A6, I assume it acts as a stand-in for the tripod mounted M1919A4 (no A6s on the PTO before '45). There would have only been one of these issued per platoon, correct?
 
Upvote 0
There are definitely too many Type 100 SMGs in Realism, but removing the excess would cause an imbalance. I propose they remove all but one flamethrower slot and all but one M1919A6 slot for the US faction, then you could remove Type 100 SMG access for the Japanese squad leader class without causing too many problems.

There are way too many flamethrowers running around. It is just annoying to play Japanese and be constantly burnt to a crisp, particularly on Iwo Jima. As for the M1919A6, I assume it acts as a stand-in for the tripod mounted M1919A4 (no A6s on the PTO before '45). There would have only been one of these issued per platoon, correct?

I like your suggestions, I do think though that more things could be done to try and reduce the type 100s even more. Also m1919s were on a company basis, not sure if that applies to the a6, but I think one in an engagement this big seems reasonable. Maybe more thompson and BAR recoil as well.
 
Upvote 0
Oh look, Allied players who want even more of an advantage than they have now, how hilariously predictable. I'm not sure what game you guys are playing, or where, but when I play RS it's mostly Type 38s and Type 99s, with a smattering of Type 100s, and virtually no machine-guns of any kind.

If you're on a server where 90% of the Axis team are running with Type 100s, knee mortars, or whatever else it is that you are using to justify nerfing an already nerfed team, then you blame the server and not the game.

The balance is already skewed in favour of the Allies, and if you can't see that, then again I'm not sure what game it is that you're playing.
 
Upvote 0
Oh look, Allied players who want even more of an advantage than they have now, how hilariously predictable. I'm not sure what game you guys are playing, or where, but when I play RS it's mostly Type 38s and Type 99s, with a smattering of Type 100s, and virtually no machine-guns of any kind.

If you're on a server where 90% of the Axis team are running with Type 100s, knee mortars, or whatever else it is that you are using to justify nerfing an already nerfed team, then you blame the server and not the game.

The balance is already skewed in favour of the Allies, and if you can't see that, then again I'm not sure what game it is that you're playing.

I mean, the rising sun as your profile pic doesn't make me think you might be biased. Maybe we dont like the type 100 because it's absolutely ridiculous to have this many of them. Besides, the japanese should have an mg advantage, there are too many m1919s. Also a third of the team carrying type 100s isn't a smattering. But whatever, who should listen to me I'm just some pissed off basement dweller who only plays as an american and wants to crush the poor underdog japan. Why don't we just give everything more recoil (except the type 38), this would be realistic and only really hurt the americans, they're the ones with the full auto and semi automatic weapons, you have to rebolt your bolt anyway. Just make the americans more realistic (less flamethrowers, m1919s, more recoil across the board) and I really don't think things will get super unbalanced by their being 3 or so type 100s, things really arent very unbalanced at all currently, it just needs to be balanced differently somehow to get rid of some type 100s and make loadouts more realistic.
 
Upvote 0
Type 100 weighs 9 pounds shooting well.. .380.
Weight is a significant factor in felt recoil. a gun that weighs more will soak up more recoil because there is more mass for it to travel.
What you need to understand is that the Type 100 is a heavy sum***** for what it is and it's shooting something that barely breaks the sound barrier. In addition to a muzzle brake this isn't going to be a like a MAC-11. And besides, in game the 800 RPM model can't hit the side of a barn past 100 meters anyway.
Also a BAR is heavy as hell, the recoil is just fine.
this this this this. We don't need another PPSH disaster.

SMG's are not full auto M14's, much less full auto M16's. Pistol cartridges are purpose-designed with low recoil which gets even lower when you add a stock, larger body, and 6-8 extra pounds of weight.

1. The game is definitely balanced through a lot asymmetry.
-First booby traps,
-Second the Japanese are on the defensive many maps,
-Third the Japanese attack maps have lots of cover on the attack path while American offense maps lack that,
-Fourth the Japanese usually only have to take a single point which makes arty easier to focus for their commander,
-Fifth the banzai charge allows soldiers of take more bullets,
-Sixth their spawn points tend to be closer to the points they are taking

2. The SMGs clearly aren't there for balance because on realism the Japanese can still win the attack maps and often do.

3. The SMGs are there to balance the weakness of Japanese close combat and put it on par with the Americans, which it does.
...and yet, the ahistorical number of SMG's shows that the asymetrical balance didn't go far enough. There are all sorts of ways to address this from a map and objective design standpoint.
 
Upvote 0
this this this this. We don't need another PPSH disaster.

SMG's are not full auto M14's, much less full auto M16's. Pistol cartridges are purpose-designed with low recoil which gets even lower when you add a stock, larger body, and 6-8 extra pounds of weight.


...and yet, the ahistorical number of SMG's shows that the asymetrical balance didn't go far enough. There are all sorts of ways to address this from a map and objective design standpoint.

I agree with you sort of, Idk I just feel like players should have to control it and keep it on target which isn't hard. It probably is unrealistic and should be changed, I'm just not sure. Increasing rifle caliber recoil is another thing which would help with balance (and something I think you would like). Higher recoil won't affect japanese bolt actions nearly as much as semi autos (by the time you're done bolting there's no more recoil also the 6.5 doesn't have that much recoil compared to the 30-06), the americans also have their BARs which could probably use more recoil as well. Increasing realism on the american side seems like it would do a good job with balancing. The map design and mortars all seem to do a good job of giving the japanese a better chance. I think with these changes and less m1919s/flamethrowers (realism) the type 100s could be brought down to a reasonable level. Also the thompson, while already at a low recoil state (I think it needs more) should have a peep sight in all the maps except maybe guadalcanal.
 
Upvote 0
The fact of the matter is, they promised Jap smgs would be a rarity. They are not.

In a historical context, they should have 1 MAX or none at all. As it is, not only are they more common then their American counterpart, the Thompson, but they also outperform it.

If they want to balance it, they should buff Banzai or something else instead of including fictitious amounts of weapons.

So, "scandalous" would be my view as well.
 
Upvote 0