I for one liked way back in .5 yes a long time ago too, the rifles just everyone using them it was great now its SMG here and there but oh well what can be done.
Nerf it, Nerf that ****. Yeah, its not fair and may not be realistic. But the rifles being ahead of smg's is one of the thing that atracts me to FH, and to me it seems the average soldier in ww2 was still issued a rifle.
"But i wanna be able to have a smg! *whine*" Then i suggest making smg's pickup kits with exeption of the very late war maps. Nothing pisses me off more then to be mowed down by some talentless prick with a smg while i clearly hit him with my rifle.
I'm pretty sure that the AT rifles actually DO sway, not just have a graphic with crosshair spread in the middle. I'll have to check it out when I'm back from work, though. Can anyone else verify?
Unfortunately, this isnt an HL engine where if you kill enough people of win enough rounds you can earn something better than a rifle. Only if you could...
See that's just it. It shouldn't be a question of "better" vs. "worse." I hate games where it's a steady progression of more powerful weapons/powers while you leave the stuff from earlier in the game behind never to be used again. The design should emphasize "different." IE: different roles for different weapons. In that role specifically, yeah, the weapon might be better or worse, but overall they should be equally good at what they do and equally bad at what they don't (within historical and game limits, of course).
The 13th Raptor Nothing pisses me off more then to be mowed down by some talentless prick with a smg while i clearly hit him with my rifle.
That's a problem with the rifles, not the SMGs. If you hit someone in the head or torso with a rifle, they should die in one hit. Period. Many times I've blasted someone right through the heart with a K98 or Garand from less than ten feet away, and he didn't die.
The stopping power over distance of rifles versus SMGs should also be increased. Rifles should have less power drop-off over distance, while SMGs should have more. As has been mentioned before, ~.30 caliber rifles were lethal up to 2000 yards or more, and the distances in FH are a lot less, so power drop-off even at the fogline should be marginal at best. On the other hand, someone should not be able to snipe with an SMG and kill an enemy in two shots. There are reports of Soviet troops being issued with Thompsons through the Lend-Lease program, and during deep winter battles, hitting heavily-dressed German troops, only to have the damned Fascists get back up, brush themselves off, and keep on running. While that was the exception rather than the rule, it demonstrates how much more SMG rounds lost power over distance.
Of course, the power loss should be dependent on the muzzle velocity of the weapon. Some SMGs had a much higher muzzle velocity than others, so their rounds should have a bit more punch over distance than ones with lower velocities.
Solo4114See that's just it. It shouldn't be a question of "better" vs. "worse." I hate games where it's a steady progression of more powerful weapons/powers while you leave the stuff from earlier in the game behind never to be used again. The design should emphasize "different." IE: different roles for different weapons. In that role specifically, yeah, the weapon might be better or worse, but overall they should be equally good at what they do and equally bad at what they don't (within historical and game limits, of course).
Well that is a problem with this limited game in map space.
Real frontlines could be hundreds of kilometers wide and usually there were no tanks at regular front lines. These were used for offensives, the task of defending front lines against enemy tanks was left to field guns.
This meant that armoured cars had little to fear once they slipped through enemy lines and were raiding artillery batteries and supply lines. The chance they run into tanks was really low.
In FH however armoured cars will run into tanks in minutes if not seconds and be wasted without a chance. That makes them almost useless.
With other vehicles and weapons it is the same way, they might be "realistic" modelled and coded after their real counterparts, but the enviroment they are used in makes them too vulnerable or of little use.
Bombers flying alone were considered lost......in FH they are always flying alone so maybe need more hitpoints to compensate a whole squadron of bomber gunners cannot concentrate fire on attacking enemy fighters all at the same time as they did in real life.
That is why sometimes weapons and vehicles need to be tuned up or down in armour and damage. The devs have been busy with balancing stuff out since they began modding FH i suppose.....very difficult work, since changing one weapon/vehicle affects the whole chain with weapons/vehicles that interact with that vehicle/weapon. Remember when jeeps could survive 100 bullets and cannonrounds from aicraft ? That was totally rediculous but a result of nerfing fighter guns, so they could not destroy bombers in seconds. One thing effects the other.
Well, as focused on infantry combat, it would seem important to model the functional differences relative to game parameters. So, while a rifle may be lethal out to 2000 yards (potentially, anyway), and an SMG lethal out to 200 yards (again, potentially), the game should consider modeling these differences to suit the game environment, much like the 0.65 flight code changes from 0.60. 0.60 was realistic, but not scaled to the map space. 0.65 is on the right track in that regard. That's what I'm looking for with infantry weapons.