Your history is incorrect sir.
Each US infantry platoon was equipped with one sniper rifle, to be issued at the discretion of the platoon leader (a 1st or 2nd Lieutenant) so the US most certainly had snipers during WWII, in fact probably more than the Germans had when you consider that each US platoon had one sniper multiplied across the entire US Army.
Rangers were special assault troops, not recon troops. They were tasked with special assault missions and were organized accordingly with extra sub machine guns, light machine guns and other direct firing weapons while lacking in heavier weapons like AT guns, 81mm mortars, water cooled machine guns and artillery.
On your point about USF and OKW not needing snipers due to their other counters is a totally valid opinion. I think USF and OKW getting snipers would be interesting, but it’s not necessary for balance. Your point about voice lines for them is a good point too. OKW could just copy WM sniper lines, but the USF one would probably just end up using Pathfinder dialogue and seem odd. (Too bad you can’t just import vCoH lines. I miss the old ‘boogeyman’. Lol)
With all due respect, my history is mostly correct.
As for the US Rangers, I'm no expert, but I was under the impression they handled probing attacks and long distance recon patrols. I'll take your word for it.
However, for the US sniper discussion, I'll need to elaborate: just because they had a scoped Springfield rifle in a platoon does not mean the US army had snipers. They are still designated marksmen attached to the platoon (not squad, sorry - my bad). Neither the army nor the marines had sniper schools or sniper tactical doctrines. Designated marksmen just happened to be good shots, and did not undergo the intense specialist training that British, German, and Soviet snipers endured. You could call this a battle of semantics, but the fact was that US "snipers" were far less capable of performing sniper duties than their counterparts because they were not trained specifically to do so - they were instead expected to perform as an infantryman first; the "sniper" role came second, whereas proper snipers spent years in dedicated schools and were generally not expected the fill the role of a regular infantryman as they were far more valuable. I still stand by my point that there were no US snipers, only designated marksmen.
Also, to add to the practical modding problems, I should mention that there are no scoped Springfield models in game; the only scoped American rifle is the Pathfinder M4C, which I'm pretty sure was only in the TOC very late in the war and practically saw no use during WWII. The closest you can get is either a scoped Mosin or Enfield. As a side note, it is not currently possible to assign voices from one faction to another. The JLI are an exception that they are included in both faction voice packs, but unfortunately they are not the rule. |
Since "snipers" were not a thing for Americans historically (they had designated marksmen in squads), I vote no. Instead, Pathfinders and Rangers (as they are both recon units in real life) could maybe have increased detection vs snipers, even potentially bonuses against snipers, to make it easier to flush them out. It would make more doctrines more viable against snipers play rather than just one this way while not introducing an ahistorical, single-doctrinal unit. The game is already ahistorical enough, and we really shouldn't make it any worse.
As for the OKW, I also vote no because they already have a highly effective anti sniper unit in two meta doctrines: JLI. The sniper in question need only be hit once before it is in danger range of the G43 crit, and a stealthed JLI waiting for a sniper to reveal itself is essentially a countersniper without the risk of being sniped itself. Adding a new OKW sniper for the purpose of countersniping in a doctrine that may or may not affect current OKW meta (depending on it's other abilities) is a waste of time.
Finally, from a modder's perspective, there are no suitable voice packages for snipers for either USF or OKW. Voices, being something that we can't edit, will unfortunately ruin th polish of the new unit as well. All in all, there is simply not enough merit for a two new gimmick doctrines in the name of countersniping. |
I think the PaK38 would be a great solution, except that the 17 pounder is much bigger than the PaK38, so substituting the model just wouldn’t look right.
It was ironic
Your first hint was "70 range AT gun would be balanced"
Also, unfortunately, Relic (so far) has shown no interest in even recoloring models (and I doubt that will change in the near future), so all "reuse this model and reskin it" requests will at most ever be "reuse this model as it is" |
I've tried single-fire StG44 via giving it a very very very short burst and distance modifiers. However, in my opinion, it's not the animation necessarily that is the biggest problem; it's the sound effect associated with the StG44, which occasionally still sounds like 2 rounds rather than 1 being fired due to the sound file being a sound loop. |
I'm guessing that you're from the Eastern part of Germany. I'm well aware of the brainwashing of the communists in that part of Germany, most of you even, to my big surprise, seem to speak or at least understand Russian.
If you don't believe me that's fine, but if you do even a little bit of research you will see that I'm not talking about this stuff without proof. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove something to someone that doesn't want to hear anything else on the internet.
...I mean, TBF, if you assume people who disagree with you are all communists, I think it's you that doesn't want to hear anything else on the internet...
And I mean, if the Soviets were really so oppressive and evil with their governing, why would anybody who lived in East Germany defend them? Do you really think Soviet "brainwashing" worked in countries like Poland or Hungary who fought to overthrow the Soviets? And, according to western brainwashing sources, didn't East Germany have the worst of it too? I fail to see your logic.
On topic:
There is a lot of context missing there, it is true that a Bren was NOT going to supress a group of infantry at range anywhere near as well as a propper HMG.
Any true HMG does two things, puts down a LOT of rounds, and does so with a "beating patern", which causes suppression over a decently large area. With more accurate weapons like a Bren, you could suppress a small area sure, but maybe not a larger area covering 10-20 infantry or more.
This was pretty much same problem with the more recently used British LSW (Light support weapon - just a long barreled SA80), it was deployed at section level with the role of fire support for flanking manouvers, however again just being a longer barreled version of the standard assault rifle, it only really added extra accuracy, no increase in rate of fire or spread of bullets. So it worked closer to a sniper type weapon, giving more concentrated fire than an actual MG, which was supposed to be its intended role.
I dont know what Dane was saying about Bren accuracy, but I dont doubt that it wouldnt perform suppression dutys as well as a propper MG due to being too accurate. That doesnt mean it wasnt a good gun, or well liked.
I think this is the wrong context to use it in.
The Bren was not and was never supposed to be an HMG, and the modern problem of the LSW not being able to apply enough suppression isn't necessarily relevant to WWII. The Bren fit the UK's infantry doctrine at the time (and for a long time afterwards), which is why it remained in service for decades. The LSW doesn't have nearly the same service life, which I think makes it fair to say it didn't fit very well with the UK's current infantry doctrine.
The Bren is obviously not as effective as a dedicated HMG or emplaced GPMG/MMG when suppressing large groups. However, it's a light machine gun that achieves fire superiority on a far more local level. You don't need to cover a whole open field; you just need to suppress that bloke and his friends over there behind the sandbags. Oftentimes the Bren's accuracy helps in suppressing small groups, especially those behind cover since they know you are accurate enough to perforate their heads if they peeked out to fire back.
Dane's comment that the Bren was too accurate to suppress effectively is almost akin to calling an MG42's suppression fire ineffective because rocket artillery does it better; he's comparing a weapon out of its intended role and scale (or context).
I still love Dane's entertainment value, but I would agree that people should take his history talks with a grain of salt. |
The idea to have Maxim do mid-range suppression (which is a good idea) isn't actually feasible with in game tools, as far as I know.
Here are the things you can modify based on distance to target:
Accuracy
Cooldown (time between shots/bursts)
Reload time
Penetration
Cyclic rate of fire (retarded, I know)
Various aim times (time it takes before shooting)
Suppression is unfortunately not on that list. The only way the Maxim gets higher suppression at mid range is to give it higher accuracy, rate of fire, or something similar, which has the side effect of increasing mid range DPS at a 1:1 ratio.
Personally, I don't mind if we did reduce Maxim max range accuracy/RoF (and therefore, DPS) and buffing suppression so that it is reliable mid/close range but I don't really have a say in that matter. |
It's not just Maxim's which are affected(/infected) by this damage critical. There is a ToW scenario with a couple of Zis-3's which show the "Engine Damage" critical. The effect is a permanent reduction of movement speed, which is why they used that icon. I always assumed it was meant to represent a broken or jammed wheel, which would make moving it quite difficult. It cannot be repaired because, it is meant to be something which cannot be fixed in the field, requiring a full overhaul in a proper workshop.
Well, that seems to be silly because it's a game where broken guns and burnt-out engines can be fixed on the field, and trenches, bunkers, and factories built within a minute. To un-jam or replace a wheel seems so trivial in comparison. |
Who said that we have learnt it from "Enemy At the Gates". It is in history books. So annoying when people do not know even half of the story!
Until you provide reputable sources to your absurd argument I (amongst most people already posted here) will have to say it is you that don't even know had the story. |
However the Ostwind and mines work is what I'm thinking.
It is a damage cap, not a kill cap as you are suggesting. There isn't an easy, straightforward way to do kill caps. |
Isn't flamer HT counter to infantry too?? Flame HT is pure infantry counter, can't do any damage to vehicles.
Panzershreck Pgrens win against M3A1 Clown Car with Flame CE. Isn't M3A1 + Flame CE counter to infantry too? Flame Clown Car is pure infantry counter, can't do any damage to vehicles.
This can go on and on. Anti-vehicle upgrade can destroy light vehicles? Who could have guessed? |