When we decide the weapons loadouts we basically have 3 main considerations, all of which have to be balanced out:
1 - What did the soldiers/marines in that battle actually use?
2 - How much 'bang for the buck' can we get in terms of our modellers' and animators' workloads?
3 - Does the weapon have nice upgrade paths for those people that like that kind of thing?
This means that we attempt to create weapons which can be applied to as many of the battles as can they can realistically be put in.
The attempts will never, of course, be wholly successful... no team with limited resources (such as ours) would be able to bring the Reising, for example, to Guadalcanal; when that is the only one of the maps we propose where it appeared. Similarly, we are unlikely to have 2 types of flamethrowers to reflect the change from M1 to M2 during the war, when there are relatively few of them on the gameplay.
It's just a matter of sensibly managing our resources to give you best number of weapons that can enjoyably be used.
1 - What did the soldiers/marines in that battle actually use?
2 - How much 'bang for the buck' can we get in terms of our modellers' and animators' workloads?
3 - Does the weapon have nice upgrade paths for those people that like that kind of thing?
This means that we attempt to create weapons which can be applied to as many of the battles as can they can realistically be put in.
The attempts will never, of course, be wholly successful... no team with limited resources (such as ours) would be able to bring the Reising, for example, to Guadalcanal; when that is the only one of the maps we propose where it appeared. Similarly, we are unlikely to have 2 types of flamethrowers to reflect the change from M1 to M2 during the war, when there are relatively few of them on the gameplay.
It's just a matter of sensibly managing our resources to give you best number of weapons that can enjoyably be used.
Last edited:
