Weapons becoming shinier with use -- Does that make sense?!

[Proud_God]

Weapon dirty-ness should be random and affect the probabilty on a jam

 

[the_Monk]

Sorry, Just because youre a veteran doesnt give you "pick of the brand new weapons". The only time a veteran was issued a new weapon is if his was damaged to the point it had to be repaired by the armorer or replaced. Half of the time the veteran would be reissued a previous used/repaired/reclaimed weapon.

If you think they had magical crates full of brand new shiney Mausers and Mosins that sat around for the sole purpose of "rewarding the veterans" youre on drugs. They didnt issue new weapons to "reward" them, or keep them around just incase Hans and Igor decided they wanted a newer rifle, they issued new weapons to replace the lost/damaged ones and to equip new recruits with one. 99.9% of the recruits were issued a weapon in basic and arrived the front with their issued weapons/equipment. There is photographic proof of soldiers being deployed in different locations later in the war with their original weapons. So the only brand new weapons near the front and at the armoureries would be there for the sole purpose of replacing lost/damaged weapons.

The Germans were completely **** about taking care of and cleaning their weapons. Theyd rather clean them than sleep if they had downtime, when you rely on a weapon to protect your life, you bet your as$ youre going to keep that rifle clean and in working condition. They were very attached to their particular weapon. So attached that ive heard stories of the germans keeping the bolts of their K98s when they turned in their rifles for nostalgia/defiance reasons at the end of the war.

Very unlikey that a veteran would turn in his tried and true weapon that he knows inside and out for a brand new one hes unccustomed to and subject himself to risk of life for the sole purpose of having a "newer" weapon.

The way weapon abuse/use is portrayed in game is a epic fail. The stock should have more scratches in it, the wood should get darker, the bluing should get thinner. Sometimes I believe this games historical decisions were made by uneducated 10 year olds.

But hey, if its "good enough" for the devs, its "good enough" for everybody else right?!

Agreed.

I do hope the DEVS change their mind with regard to this. As a veteran soldier I would like my weapons to reflect my time in service (ie. as stated.....more scratches.....darker wood.....etc. etc.)

 

[Josef Nader]

So here's a question.

Who the hell is going to have the worn or damaged weapons, the green recruits or the veterans who have been out in the field dragging their rifles through the mud for the last 4 months?

The new recruits to the front would get the worn weapons from the veterans they were replacing. The veterans would be redeployed to a new front with newer weapons. Veteran units get priority resupply BECAUSE their weapons are worn and ragged. You don't want gun jams, gunpowder corrosion, stock cracking, or barrel warping killing your veteran units.

Any gun still in good shape when the veteran's unit comes off the front gets passed to the next recruit. When the veteran unit returns to the front, they get new weapons to replace the ones they passed on.

Why in the name of Celestia would you give a new recruit a shiny new rifle when he has a perfectly good surplus rifle to use. Why WOULDN'T you replace the veteran's rifle with the stock that has been cracked over the head of your enemies and the barrel that has been corroded by months in the field.

Think about this, guys.

 

[Nebelkind]

match grade weapons straight from the factory.

match grade weapons

match grade

I don't think that means what you think it means...

Also ITT: People who have no concept of wartime logistics.

 

[Sgt Jigglebelly]

The soldier isn't "ranking up their weapon", they are ranking up their ability to access the "pick of the litter" weapons. The question should be:

Should more experienced soldiers get access to the newer/better condition weapons as they increase in rank.

I'm in agreement with this, but technically then, shouldn't the higher levels just give you more weapon options? Thus, we should be able to choose between the 'cleanest' weapon skin and progressively dirtier and more worn-in ones? TWI is all about options being a good thing right? I'd say keep this logic, and fully implement it as a choice between skins.

 

[Nebelkind]

Why WOULDN'T you replace the veteran's rifle with the stock that has been cracked over the head of your enemies and the barrel that has been corroded by months in the field.

Think about this, guys.

Probably the same reason you'd change the propellant in a brand new cartridge to a dirtier, less advanced one, then issue a brand new weapon without cleaning kits and tell soldiers and Marines in a sopping wet jungle in tropical Asia that it's a self-cleaning rifle.

You guys are using logic. Logic and the Military Supply System have yet to meet, in any nation. Logic is a stranger. Now, cheapness? Cheapness is like an older brother that constantly tells them what to do. It is VASTLY cheaper to issue new weapons to boots in supply depots well behind the line than it is to ship them to the front where the veterans are, all the while protecting them and being forced to replace losses to air attack, partisans, theft, ineptitude, and general dishonesty. If you want to know why something stupid happens in the .mil, $$ is usually at least 80% of the answer.

And this was one of the longest contiguous overland supply lines in military history, kept up by a VERY poorly mechanized military that was designed around rapid, overwhelming strikes. Add onto the normal issues you have with such a long supply line stuff like the Rasputitsa, which was in high gear by the time the Wehrmacht got into stalingrad, the fact that soviet rail lines were of a narrower gauge than European ones. Being German, they decided to tear them up and replace them all with their own wide-gauge rails instead of using russian cars/locomotives or adapting their own. This meant that many rail lines were half-finished at any given moment, and required a "hand-off" to another locomotive/car type.

To those of you saying that "Vets would take weapons from noobs", consider that doing so could get both parties arrested by a Feldgendarme, and depending on his mood, shot, imprisoned, or sent to a Penal Battalion. Your weapon's serial number was logged in your Soldbuch, and an especially a$$hole-ish FG could nail you on that. Yeah battlefield pickups were used, and even common, but robbing your own guys was frowned upon.

 

[Josef Nader]

Probably the same reason you'd change the propellant in a brand new cartridge to a dirtier, less advanced one, then issue a brand new weapon without cleaning kits and tell soldiers and Marines in a sopping wet jungle in tropical Asia that it's a self-cleaning rifle.

You guys are using logic. Logic and the Military Supply System have yet to meet, in any nation. Logic is a stranger. Now, cheapness? Cheapness is like an older brother that constantly tells them what to do.

That is a good point...

 

[Filo90]

I think both ways are plausible......it depends on how you see it....

 

[realninja]

If i was a commander i'd give the crappiest weapons to the worst soldiers, and use them as meatshields.

 

[Fedorov]

New weapons in summer maps, used weapons in winter maps.

 

[Sickerthansars]

it makes less sense to have your best troops have shoddy rifles and to give raw untested recruits the latest greatest weapons
/thread

That and ive seen german and soviet heros on multiple occasions who wouldn't classify as looking beat up and tattered or dirty compared to the standard soldiers.

 

[Nebelkind]

it makes less sense to have your best troops have shoddy rifles and to give raw untested recruits the latest greatest weapons
/thread

It also makes sense to fully mobilize your country for war before starting up two fronts, or to prioritize battle proven weapons/materiel you can crank out in massive numbers and is supported by the current infrastructure like the StuG, over prototype gear that breaks down and costs way more to make, and needs all kinds of brand new support systems like the Pz V/VI/KT/JagdTiger/etc. in an endless defensive fight like the entire ostfront was post 1943, the disadvantages of turretless assault guns would have been negated by the increased number of high L-value 75mm guns on the line.

Oh wait, the German High Command never stopped doing the exact opposite of that until they were all dead from losing the war so hard.

 

[Josef Nader]

It also makes sense to fully mobilize your country for war before starting up two fronts, or to prioritize battle proven weapons/materiel you can crank out in massive numbers and is supported by the current infrastructure like the StuG, over prototype gear that breaks down and costs way more to make, and needs all kinds of brand new support systems like the Pz VI/VII/JagdTiger/etc.

Oh wait, they never stopped doing the exact opposite of that until they were all dead from losing the war so hard.

Well now, hold on. We're not talking their high level strategic doctrines here, we're talking how those weapons were distributed.

It doesn't matter if those new rifles are ****ty prototypes or battle-tested designs, that veteran soldier has a rusted barrel and a warped stock. He needs a new gun.

 

[Nebelkind]

Well now, hold on. We're not talking their high level strategic doctrines here, we're talking how those weapons were distributed.

It doesn't matter if those new rifles are ****ty prototypes or battle-tested designs, that veteran soldier has a rusted barrel and a warped stock. He needs a new gun.

I'm just saying that because it makes sense to us, foreigners in a completely different time and place, doesn't mean it happened.

 

[Josef Nader]

I'm just saying that because it makes sense to us, foreigners in a completely different time and place, doesn't mean it happened.

Well, yes and no. Humans have understood for a -very- long time that it's a bad idea to waste experienced soldiers.

Sending your vets into battle with broken weapons is a pretty good way to waste talented soldiers.

I mean, we're not talking the complex political web of Nazi Germany and Europe circa ~1940s, we're talking military logistics 101, the whole point of having a supply train is to resupply soldiers on the front with fresh supplies from the rear. Guns are supplies. Without functioning guns, your guys can't fight. Ergo, get guns to the front to replace the non-functioning guns, or your guys won't be able to fight.

 

[Nebelkind]

Well, yes and no. Humans have understood for a -very- long time that it's a bad idea to waste experienced soldiers.

Sending your vets into battle with broken weapons is a pretty good way to waste talented soldiers.

I mean, we're not talking the complex political web of Nazi Germany and Europe circa ~1940s, we're talking military logistics 101, the whole point of having a supply train is to resupply soldiers on the front with fresh supplies from the rear. Guns are supplies. Without functioning guns, your guys can't fight. Ergo, get guns to the front to replace the non-functioning guns, or your guys won't be able to fight.

While what you say makes sense, I'm reminded of the luftwaffe dropping cargo-containers filled with tens of thousands of condoms on the encircled landsers in the Stalingrad Kessel, when they had no food, ammunition, or winter clothing, and the Russians were getting closer by the hour.

 

[[TORO]Patosentado]

Despite the poll questions are a little "biased", I think that a well used weapon gets polished, as part of the factory matt finish goes out with wear... but wooden parts get darker, as some kind of oil is used to clean and polish them.

 

[Hypno Toad]

The poll needs a " don't care " option.

The "don't care" option is not voting and leaving the thread.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

The "don't care" option is not voting and leaving the thread.

No. That would infer that there is not a vocal party of the community that doesn't care either way.

I'd rather have in-game customization for loadout than "shiny weapon this, dirty weapon that". The condition of the weapons are not what should be the focus here. I don't know why that kind of feature was even implemented.

 

[Josef Nader]

While what you say makes sense, I'm reminded of the luftwaffe dropping cargo-containers filled with tens of thousands of condoms on the encircled landsers in the Stalingrad Kessel, when they had no food, ammunition, or winter clothing, and the Russians were getting closer by the hour.

Again, that has nothing to do with who gets a new gun. The Luftwaffe dropping useless supplies has nothing to do with what happens with the useful supplies.

So what if they dropped 300 tons of condoms and 3 rifles? The veteran guys with the most worn, broken rifles are going to get priority on those 3 rifles, not the new guy.