I'm not disputing the reinforcement numbers.
Well, I am ... that's what bothers me most atm. The latest additions that screwed Station and screwed GE even more.
I just don't think they have much to do with map balance (in most cases).
You don't see how reinforcements affect map balance ?! How about on the late game, let's say after 15 minutes with equally skilled players on both teams, the Axis will just be depleted on the attacking maps (Station, GE and Spartanovka) ? You can't attack with fewer reinforcements, you don't do that in real life, you don't do that as Allies in this game, you shouldn't do that as Axis.
Quoting yourself is wasted effort when we all read that post already - don't mistake disagreement for a failure to read.
Well you said two things (again) that make me think you haven't read it all:
a) you discuss tanks and that Panzer IV is better than T-34. I have told you that from the first topic (separate in a phrase about tanks and on how each map is favoring who).
b)
"Or you could try playing both sides, like I have". I said I play
most of the time as Axis, that doesn't mean all the time. I've played every map, even Gumrak as Allies and not just one time.
Ok, let's discuss leveled up weapons. It's not to hard to level a weapon in this game (with the exception of pistols and anti-tank).
the MG34 beats the DP28 for controllability, rate of fire, penetration, ease of hipshooting and at higher levels has massively greater ammo capacity (250 vs 47).
I don't know how you define "controllability" so I'll just skip that.
MG-34 beats DP-28 in ROF and greater ammo capacity (75, not 250 - how the hell did you come up with that vs 47).
Instead, DP-28 is 3kg lighter and has better visibility.
Penetration and hip-shooting are the same. I'm not aware of an wall that MG-34 penetrates and DP-28 doesn't.
The MkB is superior to almost anything else in the game for its mix of rate of fire, penetration, killing power, ammo capacity, accuracy, controllability and mobility.
It's an overall weapon, and like all overall weapons it does everything bad: worst than PPSH on short distances, worst than MP-40 on medium distances and worst than a semi or rifle on long distances.
It's also heavier and reloads slow. If you level it to 50 you get an useless sniper hybrid - it's actually unplayable.
The weapon is good just to annoy russians.
They are 3 on a 32 player team. That's 10%.
The MP40 is superior to the PPSH for range, accuracy and controllability. PPSH has the edge in rate of fire. At higher level drum PPSH may have the edge.
MP-40 is inferior to PPSH in so many categories. It's just good vs papasha on medium distances, in CQB (where the weapons are supposed to meet) PPSH has:
- almost double rate of fire
- double the ammount of rounds
- kills in burst (which MP-40 and MkB usually don't do)
- a larger spread which is bad on the medium distances but it's great for CQB.
The semi-auto and bolt action rifles seem pretty well identical to me (noting that I am comparing about L8 Russian weapons to L1 German weapons).
Even the rifles are inferior for Axis thanks to the extra bullet you have to reload (which killed me more than 1 time ^^)
I won't discuss pistols and sniper rifles, it's useless.
Yes PZB is more powerfull than PTRD even they are the same weapon. I actually think it's a bug and not a feature (I even posted it on the Bugs section).
Anyway, like you said: leveling up gives you access to enemy load out so the weapons will fail as an excuse for the russians.
Now the next excuse is uniforms. I think it's pretty bad to say the team is imbalanced because of the uniforms but ... watever. We can discuss this if you want.
@Mad_Murdock
Yes I'm arrogant but on this topic, at least, I'm also right. If you invalidate a person's opinion just because of that person's arrogance that's just ... sad.
I didn't shoot opposition opinion. Opinion is something backed up by arguments, now he detaliate it and we can really have a conversation. "Germans have better weapons" it's not an opinion, it's just words ... "Germans have better weapons
because ..." is an opinion !
Concerning:
"As for opposing opinions, i see Axis win all of these maps often enough, i think it comes down to team coordination. At this point if a team is smoking you 150+ to 0 it is the tactics that should be re-evaluated not the map balance."
Again, like so many guys on this topic, you discuss particular round, games, teams ... I gave an example earlier how I saw Commissars won by the russians in 7 minutes. You consider Commissars a balanced map or a map that favors Allies ? I'm not, I think it's a very bad map for russians.
Try not to think on your personal experience in one night, week, try to
think big as they say: "if the teams were equal as skill - think 60 clones of you: 30 Axis, 30 Russians - would the attacking team be able to win with the same or less reinforcements ?". The answer is a clear "NO" because you can't just kill more people when you attack then the defenders can. If you attack and kill more guys than the defenders it's spelled: "imbalanced players or weapons". As I (think I) proved that the weapons are pretty much balanced so you just have to say that if the attackers won it's because they had better players, not that they had a fair map.
@SkinZ187
Your proposal is good, I can play like that.
But, again for the 2312452 time:
with equally skilled teams, the attackers would just lose on Sparta, Station and GE.
You will have 2 teams who both lost the rounds, separated by some seconds.
You see: they didn't screw it just for Axis (it just happens that Axis is the only one screwed since beta),
they screw it for the attacking team.
@VocaTeam
I'm also a german who plays wiht PPSH but the myths of the MkB and "the laser-gun" will die hard.