more smg power -1 reply

Please wait...

Lobo

All your base are belong to FH

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

6,883 Posts

0 Threads

#31 13 years ago

You was lucky and I was incompetent, the reality is that 90% times a smger will kill the riflemen in short range. LOL, in old patches people used the same words to complain, but those times were the riflemen who told them




GunsOfBrixton29

[8th] Col. Brixton

50 XP

23rd May 2004

0 Uploads

760 Posts

0 Threads

#32 13 years ago

LordKhaineI don't think anyone argues that fact. But just because something is used a lot, doesn't mean it's the best. There were a lot of rifles lying around from previous wars. That's the main reason rifles were the most equiped weapon. As the war progressed there was a growing trend to equip more and more troops with smgs. From accounts I've read many riflemen felt as if they were there mainly to carry ammo along for the MG's.

And SMG's can be accurate. The PPSh-41 on semi was supposed to have an effective range of as much as 200m! There's a reason the USSR produced 6 million or so PPSh's. Hell.. the Soviets would equip entire platoons with the PPSh. It was cheap, accurate enough and very flexible. While uptake of SMG's was less drastic in other countries, you could still count on specialised assault units packing lots of SMG's. And it's these spearheading units you're likely to engage in many of FH's maps.

I don't see why so many people think SMG's were only useful for charging into rooms and firing wildly from the hip at point blank. They were vastly preferable to a bolt action in urban enviroments, and some of them were also suitable for open enviroments. This simply isn't the case as it stands. But then the situation with smgs and rifles is a lot better than the situation with mg's right now... but don't get me started! ;)

No one said that rifles are the best, but this is a realism mod isn't it? More people should be using rifles than SMGs, and making SMGs more powerful would not make that possible.

And I don't know, I've heard accounts of soldiers that said they trusted their Garand over any other weapon that they could of chosen.




{9thInf}QbanRev*E*

Hero

50 XP

26th October 2005

0 Uploads

276 Posts

0 Threads

#33 13 years ago
LoboYou was lucky and I was incompetent, the reality is that 90% times a smger will kill the riflemen in short range. LOL, in old patches people used the same words to complain, but those times were the riflemen who told them

im very proficient with either, so it does not bother me. The first match 9th played after .7 i recall the whole axis team using smgs. it was just wonderful for me and my no.4 they had absolutely no prayer in the open fields of market garden. id get shot from 50 meters out with an mp, giggle and drop them in one:bows: For my own benefit keep them the same as they are now, i just question how realistic it is for a bullet to hit me, and for me to easily aim at them and kill them in one shot. BTW great job on the new stg. Ive got the recoil down on it so that my bullets dont raise, and i just fire consistant level shots killing in 2, and aiming as quickly as a rifle everytime.




Lobo

All your base are belong to FH

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

6,883 Posts

0 Threads

#34 13 years ago

The damage of smg's was not changed, it works exactly like in old patches, only a head shot will be 1S1K, the diference is the crosshair doesn't close totally so it's not so easy to get long range hits and that the crosshair is afected during runing and jumping so the acuracy is bad for spray'n'prayers bunnies...pure realism, if you take your time to aim, crouch, shoot in short bursts you will see the old deadly FH smg is there ;)




Dios

Cannon Fodder

50 XP

17th February 2004

0 Uploads

291 Posts

0 Threads

#35 13 years ago

If you use a rifle the way the SMGs are normally used by most players (that is, while running or jumping), they suck as well. If you take your time to aim, all weapons work as they are supposed to, and SMGs have their advantage on the short-medium range. Now if you just run shooting in the general direction of the enemy, while's on his knees aiming at your head, then of course that you'll be in disadvantage, no matter what weapon are both of you using.




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#36 13 years ago

The ranges in FH are too constricted. The rifle doesn't have a chance to shine that often. I think SMGs are pretty right except they should od more damage closer and they should fall off to near no effect at long range. Right now they are medium damage at all ranges, they don't fall off properly at range, so to fix this devs have made them slightly less dmging.




bigFHfan

GF makes me horny

50 XP

25th August 2005

0 Uploads

94 Posts

0 Threads

#37 13 years ago

I reckon shot in the chest: pistols 2 shots / smg's 3 shots / auto rifles 2 shots / bolt rifles & snipers 1 shot. Shot in the head all guns 1 shot kill. legs & arms 6 shots with any gun, 1 shot you will hav blood loss u will die in 2mins 2 shots 1:40 3 shots 1:15 4 shots :45 5 shots :25 secs.




Jetro

There's a satchel on your tank

50 XP

6th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,473 Posts

0 Threads

#38 13 years ago

mabye smgs should just have tighter groupings at close range. I've had a few times in which a kinfer got close enough to stab me, despite my croshair being centered on him.

I'm pretty sure a guy with a smg's aim decreases in an exponential fashion. (a fairly steady accuracy to a point that decreases sharply after a certain range), instead of the gradual wide crosshair that can miss a guy 20 ft from you. I think the map with Pavlov's house clearly demonstrates the problem with smg's. Knives domintate the inside of that house, not smgs like they should.