Rifleing should slowed a bit.Too powerful?! Nah its weak when compared to its real life counterpart which at 100meters could penetrate 200mm of armor.
Thats what I just said, the Panzerfaust is weak in terms of damage levels, it should only take one Panzerfaust to take out a tank, but in RO the Panzerfaust is too powerful beccause of the SPEED at which it can be used by a player.
But on the topic of a German Anti-Tank soldier being able to carry an SMG or rifle, however true it may have been in reality, its one of the few ways I can possibly think of the even up the sides for the game, because any player can see theres a lot that a German Anti-Tank soldeir can do that the Russian counterpart cant even touch. I mean just look at their loadouts.
Both get a pistol and ammo, both get grenades, but the German gets three Panzerfausts and an SMG while the Russian only gets the AT Rifle with 20 rounds. And anyone whos been playing RO for any length of time can tell you that the Panzerfaust completly blows the Russian AT Rifle out of the water in both power and usefulness.
Even though the Panzerfaust power is much lower than reality, its unrealistic in the fact that you can carry three and fire them off very quickly in a short amount of time.
I firmly believe that the Panzerfaust power should be upped, but it should be slower to work with and you should only be able to carry one. The reason I keep suggesting the Lend-Lease Bazooka and the Panzershrek is because they both have similar capabilities as the Panzerfaust, are accessable to both sides, and allow for that soldier to carry multiple rockets unlike the one-shot Panzerfaust.
Now many will argue that the AT Rifle can destroy tanks in one hit, and I dont deny that it cant, many others even say that the AT Rifle is too powerful. But when you compare the AT Rifle to the Panzerfaust there is no contest, sure the AT Rifle can make one shot kills at long range, but what percent of players know how to make those shots or even care enough to practace and get good at it, not to mension how hard it is to get in a position to make those shots. While the little German AT guy is running around, taking out infantry like every other soldier and killing tanks left and right as soon as he gets in range.
I can tell you for a fact that in ANY server I have been in where an AT Rifle kill has been made on a tank, there have allready been at least 10 or more Panzerfaust kills allready. Most servers dont even get ANY AT Rifle kills.
Even though you are totally correct that many German AT soldiers carried other weapons into battle, the basic AT soldier concept still remains, the normal infantry depend in an AT soldier to take out tanks while the AT soldier depends on normal infantry for support enemy against ground troops. Now in reality it was possible for an AT soldier to carry an MG or rifle, but only because he would never use rambo tactics like you can see in the current German AT infantry in RO today, its because this Axis soldier can combat both infantry and vehicles only allows him to go off on his own because he wont need any help from anybody, and if he's a competant player on top of that he can completly defend an entire objective from multiple tanks ON HIS OWN. The only way I can see to fix the problem in RO is to take the slightly unrealistic route and remove the second weapon from the German AT soldier.
My suggestion to solve the problem in the name of gameplay might not cooperate with history at every turn, but its the best and closest thing I can come up with that doesn't make anything drastic up or attach values that will make the game arcade like. I still have yet to see a solid solution that trys to cover all aspects of the problem.
In the end all of the facts that you presented are true but I still stand by what I think should be done because its the only way I can think of to solve the problem, make both sides even but still different, and still try and keep the basic realistic, and fun, gameplay thats allready been laid out for us. Sure my ideas may not be totally realistic, but if they are implemented the right way they can bend the historical rules enough without breaking them to bits and still leave the gameplay fun and fair but also still leave the noticible differences in both sides intact.
Basically you are right about what really happened in the war, but RO is only a game, and a game doesn't have room to be able to do everything perfectly and historically accurate, some things HAVE to be bent for the sake of gameplay. If we made every part realistic the game might not have as much success that its seeing now because of how unfair reality was. Yes, in reality war was not fair and different sides had different, more or less tools and not everything was even. But because RO is a game we are allowed a little leway to make the fake video-game war zone more fair so that our palyers can have fun, which is the most important part of creating a video game, to be able to have fun playing. This is why many unrealistic games like Battlefeild and CoD have done so well, not because they were in WW2 or were besed on real events, its because the gameplay was FUN, and that alone is the sole reason those games did so well despite their unrealistis qualities.
Lastly, I want to tank you for presenting your counterpoints to me, that is allways the best thing that you can give someone about their suggestions.
