johnson removal

[Viper]

AB 101 is a dropped riflemen squad, isn't it? and they will lose the thompsons in a return for the recoilless rifle upgrade ... right? this is really fine because 101 always upgrade bars or johnson since 82 have thompson by default .... but what about removing the johnson and adding grease??? i think there is no point of having 2 exact similar weapons .... bar and johnson are almost too close to each other in performance , bar is even better because it has suppression ... adding grease instead of johnson will be a good logic improvment.
we can also remove johnson from cqb as well and add m1919 lmg in replace ... what do u think people?!?!

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I think it's bullshit.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Hmm... The M3 Grease is generally an excellent weapon in Bk as it's very cheap.. yet too deadly as well.
That's why I could srsly admit that 2 Bars + 3 Grease guns probably all for just 25 ammo might be more powerful than 2 Bars + 2 Johnsons each for 45 ammo!
To be honest, to me that sounds such a quite reasonable suggestion specifically by knowing that they would lose the Thompson upgrades of which they never ever managed to use for a single time after all...

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

They cant have 4 mgs, currently it is in this way: 3 Johnsons = Better firepower, 2 Bars + 1 Johnson = lesser firepower, but supression ability in return. Moreover, M3 is the weakest smgs of all in mod, thats simply dumb to combine MGs which are exellent on distant range with Grease which deals 0 damage on long distance. In short: idea is stupid and makes no sense.

[Butterkeks]

What?
Removing Johnson and adding grease for it?
As I can see Tiger is again thinking that just because a weapon isn't a bolt action rifle it's as good as every other MG...

Removing good Johnson and adding bullshit grease would be like removing FG42 from Reg 5 and giving them MP40. And that's not even as bad as MP40 is better than grease.

[Warhawks97]

What?

1. Grease has some use in early game but in late game its crap. Getting anyhow in close range with allied units when axis got STG´s is only possible with Smoke cover or ambush and with units that have enough HP and survivability. Usually only the first rifle squad gets them
2. So Both, 101st and 82nd can only fight close range.... congrats... all ranged combat options (which are rare enough already) are gone!
3. 101st drops with M1 Carabine, rifles have M1 Garand. The carabine is already a close range weapon
4. BAR is not same or better as Johnson. The Johnson is better so thats why all get Johnson over BAR. Damage and rof is higher so the dps for Johnson is better. And fuck BAR suppression bullshit. Such a waste. Good vs blobbers maybe but thats it.


Honestly, just why? Whats the point of it? The 101st is some kind of slightly better airdropped rifle men but rifle squad (but also volks) are not really suited for close combat as they die before. In early game you see them but later people get rangers and thompson (or simply 82nd) if they want to fight close combat.

Currently people use the 101st with jonhonson so that they have good equipment for close, mid and assault combat. Take that away and AB would nothing else than a fucking blobb of close range units with thompson, carabine and grease gun.


So AB need the Johnson and the 3 possible lmg upgrades to have a inf unit for distant/mid range fire support.

And the grease isnt that great. As soon as axis stepped over from low HP Volks to high HP grens (with stgs) you wont survive a closing in move without proper cover (smoke cover).

[Viper]

a question to sukin .. what about the riflemen? they already have m3 + bar but it was never stupid!

mp40 is noway better than grease i think.

bars at long range are very good already , i wished to improve the close combat strenght of 101 and to reduce their cost by 15 manpower at the same time.

[MarKr]

Stats-wise Thompsons are better than Grease. What would be the sense in removing one weapon upgrade and giving them same-type but worse-performance weapon? Also as already mentioned very few people ever bought Thompsons for 101st why would they go for Grease-gun?

Also this:

currently it is in this way: 3 Johnsons = Better firepower, 2 Bars + 1 Johnson = lesser firepower, but supression ability in return.

The reasons given so far did not convince me of usefulness of the proposed change.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Stats-wise Thompsons are better than Grease. What would be the sense in removing one weapon upgrade and giving them same-type but worse-performance weapon?

Thompsons should be removed if u would ever manage to add an RL upgrade... I think that the reason of which is behind avoiding to upgrade any Thompsons for 101st squads most of the times.. is not because of that it is a worthless weapon anyhow, but in fact it's all just due to that they are available too late to upgrade while there is also no point at all of equipping them to the 101st by knowing that the 82nd units already have them as a standard!

@Seha;
Personally btw I wouldn't ever mind reducing their price to 400MP or even 390 but only when they get M3 instead of Johnson exactly as u just suggested, so.. actually that's a one more good point by u once again in my own prespective.

[Warhawks97]

Machine Pistols become pretty difficult to use in late game. For Axis the Volks would die before getting into close combat in mid-late game which doesnt mean MP40 is bad.

And same goes for allied. In order to get effectively into closer combat you either need a damn overwhelming number or smoke cover (or vet 5). But thats difficult as you would most likely die to lmgs, K98, STG´s, G43´s etc.

US going for close combat in early game sometimes with grease guns. In mid game, without any high vet units etc they keep on ranged fight. For that purpose they get BAR´s, M16 HT, snipers, maybe rangers with lmg etc.

Later in the game, when they have either more rangers (inf doc), map full with craters, vets etc then you will see more Thompsons again for close range fight.

So "that Thompson comes too late for 101st" is not the only reason. If it would come earlier there wouldnt be any point in going into close combat with the very first 101st squads which are really barely more than rifles. It would end up simply into a waste of units. So regardless of how early Thompson is available players wouldnt equip their very first 101st with them. And a Grease wouldnt make things better either as Markr said.


Close range combat is only for the "fittest" squads. The 101st do not belong to them really. Even commandos manage close combat in early-mid stage only due to smoke cover and later due to lots of Tec upgrades. The 101st would at least require the vet 1 upgrade which comes not before Thompson anyway.

[Wake]

What about removing the BAR for 101st, but giving them Garands instead of M1 Carbines? The carbine kind of sucks. It's a bad long range weapon, is worse than other rifles at mid range, and there are much better guns for close range (like Thompsons).

If we want to be realistic, paratroopers never got BARs, they were too bulky to jump out of the plane with. The Johnson was smaller so some paratroopers did use that. The Garand was also more widely used than the carbine.

Garand would give 101st better fighting ability at the start of the game, when they are currently similar to a very expensive rifleman squad. It would encourage people to use them more, too. The 82nd are used more right now because for only slightly more cost, they get better guns, more health, and 2 bazookas instead of 1 recoiless rifle.

Or we could give them the upgrade for the M1919A6 LMG, the one that rangers get for 75 muni. It's pretty good at long range but cannot be fired while moving.

[Butterkeks]

mp40 is noway better than grease i think.

Are you sure that you are playing BK mod?
Warhawks, could you do me a favor and post the weapon stats of grease gun and MP40? Thx in advance

bars at long range are very good already , i wished to improve the close combat strenght of 101 and to reduce their cost by 15 manpower at the same time.

1. For close combat you have M1 carabine and 82nd. Johnson is the only possibility for 101st to gain any combat strength.
2. -15MP but therefore no Johnson? What a great benefit! Now the unit comes 0,5 seconds earlier, I mean, who needs Johnson if he has this unit so early available?!

So much for Sarcasm.

But really, removing Johnson would give AB another useless unit, making it even harder to play.

[SteamID_razelazz]

What about removing the BAR for 101st, but giving them Garands instead of M1 Carbines? The carbine kind of sucks. It's a bad long range weapon, is worse than other rifles at mid range, and there are much better guns for close range (like Thompsons).

If we want to be realistic, paratroopers never got BARs, they were too bulky to jump out of the plane with. The Johnson was smaller so some paratroopers did use that. The Garand was also more widely used than the carbine.

I suppose the logic is that the paratroopers don't actually carry the BARs and need 45 mun to just pull it out of their bags, but rather they get supplied with BARs on the ground.

I've actually thought for a while that maybe US airborne should get Garands by default, but I wouldn't want to trade either the suppressive fire of BAR, DPS of Johnson, or CQB functionality of Thompsons, and it seems like the devs don't want to either.

[Krieger Blitzer]

@Wake;
M1 Carbines are their prime speciality, they can't be taken away from them I suppose...

@Keks;
I am afraid the guy is correct.. actually the M3 seem to be way better than the MP40, not only according to the weapon stats-wise but also in fact the Grease is quite clearly much cheaper and often available in higher numbers as well.

Johnsons are not the only long range weapons to be used by the 101st... Again u must not forget Bars; slightly less firepower compared to Johnson perhaps but in return u would get the suppression ability!

Seha clearly suggested a reduced cost generally while offering '-15' as an example but surely it could be higher which was a demand by several other players before btw including Hawks if not mistaken, but personally now I won't even bother a less price that is even considered to be about 375 ONLY then.

So, u will get a much cheaper unit that is still performing good at both long and short ranges plus the capability of knocking out vehicles, think of it. I find it logic to be honest...

And plz try to respect his viewpoint more or in a better way I mean.. there is no need for any emotions, silly challenges nor such sarcasm... Always keep these kind of matters away.

[Yafa]

but personally now I won't even bother a less price that is even considered to be about 375 ONLY then.

but they have fire grenades tiger
this will be too cheap

[Krieger Blitzer]

But they also can never ambush for example.. why should they ever cost more than or even as much as infilteration Rangers??

-40 MP
Grease instead Johnson
an RL instead Thompson

-50 MP for Reg 5 and SAS.

-100 MP for Luft Pioneers, in exchange of removing the single MP44 as well as the MP40s upgrade.

That is what I was up to for now! Very convincing to me...

[Yafa]

ah ,now it looks more legit to me i guess

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Just finish this discussion pls, thats stupid and makes no sense. Even if devs will decide to replace some of the weapons with RL's upgrade, that will be Thompson, since there is no point in purchasing thompsons for 101s when you have 82s equipted with them by deffault.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I believe u r now wasting such a very good chance of greatly improving the 101st squads.
Yes, Thompsons have to be taken away for an RL instead as I said it too.
But come on, as I am really wondering now about how is it exactly stupid?? If u would have them at a reduced price by 40 MP being still capable of fighting at a long range using Bars.. as well as having the M3 for better short range operations both at the same time!! Additionally to the anti vehcile capabilities that they already gain with equipping RLs...

I am honestly disappionted to see how u have been always afraid of touching the AB units at all. While every time later also admitted yourself the proposed changes of which u were against; to be so great somehow -_-

I would ask for a poll then, but not now anyways.. maybe later in order to give u the enough time to think of it more wisely.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I am honestly cant understand why you dont see the reason why its stupid, m3 - zero damage on long range, where Bars are supposed to be used. Just in previous patch we got changes for sten commando for same reason, and now you proposing the same fail for airborne.

Also take into account that Johnson exists only for CQB's ( a single one ) and for 101s, who ll need a weapon which is available for in a single unit?

[Krieger Blitzer]

Correct, we managed to change both the Sten and the Lees Commando squads on the last patch as it was quite illogic to combine Sten + Bren at the same time.
But here it's a bit different this time.. the 101st are more supposed to be like a multi-role unit and not only long range anti infantry focused. They have handheld AT weapons which will force u to get close so often in order to shoot... Plus that u actually can't compare the Bar with Brens nor M3s with Stens, the Grease is better than the Sten at mid range.. the Bren is an LMG and not an assault neither a support rifle like Bars or Johnsons.

Shortly I mean that the 101st squads should not be any elite kind of units that are costing above 400 MP anyhow, they are dropped Riflemen in the first place but the only difference would be the RL.. surely in addition to the fact that they are air dropped as well as reinforced instantly from the air!

[Warhawks97]

@keks: You asked, you get it.


MP 40:
Range short/mid/long/distant: 0-10/10-20/20-35/35-45 (45-60 is count as distant as well)

Accuracy: Short/Mid/Long/Distant: 0.75/0.45/0.1/0.06

Aim time min/max: 0.25/0.5
Aim Time Muliplier from short to distant range: 0.1/1/2/2

Burst Duration: 1 seconds
Rate of fire: 8 rounds per second

Cooldown Min/Max: 1.5/2 seconds
Cooldown Multiplier from short to distant: 0.3/1/1.5/1.5 (delay between bursts increases the farther the enemie is)

Damage (per bullet): 10-15

Reload Min/Max: 2.8/3.5 seconds
Reload muliplier from close to mid range: 1.25/1.15/1/1 (The closer the enemie, the longer the reload)
Frequency: 3 (after four bursts)

Suppression (per bullet) from close to distant range: 0.001/0.001/0.001/0.001
Nearby suppression Multiplier: 0.3
Nearby suppression radius: 10
Target suppressed mulipliers:
suppression: 0.2
accuracy: 1
damage: 1
Target pinned mulipliers:
damage: 0.25
accuracy: 0.5
Suppression: 0.1 M3 Grease Gun:
Range short/mid/long/distant: 0-10/10-20/20-35/35-45 (45-60 is count as distant as well)
___________________________________________________________________________________

M3
Accuracy: Short/Mid/Long/Distant: 0.75/0.45/0.07/0.04

Aim time min/max: 0.25/0.5
Aim Time Muliplier from short to distant range: 0.1/1/2/2

Burst Duration: 1.43 seconds
Rate of fire: 7 rounds per second

Cooldown Min/Max: 1/1.5 seconds
Cooldown Multiplier from short to distant: 0.3/1/1/1 (delay between bursts increases the farther the enemie is)

Damage (per bullet): 11-17

Reload Min/Max: 2.5/3 seconds
Reload muliplier from close to mid range: 1.25/1/1/1 (The closer the enemie, the longer the reload)
Frequency: 3 (after three bursts)

Suppression (per bullet) from close to distant range: 0.001/0.0002/0.0002/0.0002
Nearby suppression Multiplier: 0.3
Nearby suppression radius: 10
Target suppressed mulipliers:
suppression: 0.2
accuracy: 0.75 (weird since smgs are supposed to kill suppressed enemies from close range)
damage: 1
Target pinned mulipliers:
damage: 0.25
accuracy: 0.25
Suppression: 0.1

taken from: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=734

The MP40 has better rof but shorter bursts. Therefore less often reload. Accuracy at critical ranges is the same so far. Damage bit better for Grease. The grease is actually better but both weapons are rare in late game. As long as only the weakest inf (lowest survivability) carry them you wont see any of them effectively in late game.



@Tiger and wake. M1 Garand upgrade was discussed in old forum already. About parachuter default weapons its funny once again. Old devs wanted those weapons as default with which they dropped out of the airplane. Thats Thompson and M1 Carabine and so they gave them those. But for axis this rule got abrogated. Those are allowed to drop with weapons they want.

So considering the old devs original idea about realistic default weapons the Carabine cant be replaced by M1 Garand. But when axis can drop with FG42 and G43 i would say there wouldnt be anything against giving them the M1 Garand as default. But that would mean that M1 Carabine would be kicked out of the game entirely which, for sake of diversity, would be sad.

Generally i wouldnt mind about M1 Garand as upgrade instead of thompson but idk what the plans are with reccoiless rifle.


The cost for 101st AB is discussible. They arent really better than rangers. The Rangers have with Garand the better weapon i think (Carabine is a close range rifle. Its not really a rifle actually. It doesnt fire the Typicall rifle rounds and instead Pistol bullets). The Recoiless is for free but efficency again discussible. In fact most dont pick them up anymore as they rather keep the 6 men with AI weapons than giving them a single AT weapon which doesnt serve any purpose. The Rangers in inf doc are probably much better and versatile than AB 101st. There rangers have ambush, more HP (later cheaper) and M6A3C zook.

So far the 101st is somewhere between Rangers and grens. Default weapons are inferior to others. Survivability bit better than standard Rangers but not better than Rangers in inf doc. In the early stage they are just an extrem waste of res. Later in game they can become usefull in numbers taking advantage of lower reinforce cost but even then they do need the vet upgrade. But they never reach commandos or inf doc rangers diversity and usefulness.


So you can keep discussing. Nothing would speak against M1 Garand as default weapon as long as axis can drop with G43 scoped and FG42. Also nothing would speak against a cost drop as they are not much more than airdropped Rangers which still stay way behind WH Gren performence.


@Yafa: Grens in terror get stg for free, have high survivability (many HP), Elite K98 (no joke, they have same K98 as stormtoopers and "Elite_ K98_Rifle" and way superior to PEgren K98) and also flame nades with more range. So why would 375 MP 101st with "Pistol rifles" be OP?

Shortly I mean that the 101st squads should not be any elite kind of units that are costing above 400 MP anyhow, they are dropped Riflemen in the first place but the only difference would be the RL.. surely in addition to the fact that they are air dropped as well as reinforced instantly from the air!

Basically i agree that the 101st is (or rather should) the AB doc mainline inf being not more expensive than 400 MP. Still they are AB units and thus above Rifle squad status. Different weapons, different abilites and better survivability than Rifle squad. But that doesnt automatically mean you can put them on same lvl as Rifles. Rifles in later stage have BAR´s and rifle nades and backing up rangers from distance. 101st do dropp behind the lines so they need the diversity of being capable of doing some AT duties, ranged fire support or close combat. So the Johnson are needed for ranged fire support just as Rifle squads do in late game. And Johnson give simply a special touch and the necessary performence as the rest of the squad has afterall just M1 Carabines.
That only BAR gives suppressive fire ability is a "vcoh thing".

In fact we could add suppressive fire to Johnson as well when at least two are upgraded and max possible 3, then replacing BAR upgrade with M1 Garand upgrade and add an rl. So they could then have 1-3 Johnson with suppressive fire ability (when two are upgraded), 1-6 M1 garands, 1-2 RL´s, 1-6 M1 carabines. That would make the 101st being as versatile as necessary for AB operations.
I think that would round up things even better, lmao.

[Viper]

Damage bit better for Grease. The grease is actually better

@butterkeks
i told you

[Krieger Blitzer]

The previous essay is full of some serious contradictories.. how come u r up to reduce the price of 101st squads while also demanding to maintain their Johnsons as well as asking for M1 Garand? While also claiming that it's logic enough since Reg 5 or Gebirgs are actually dropping with FG42s or G43s etc just by default...
These are elite troops that cost so much, u can't simply neglect this fact! So, if u want the 101st units to become the same being more advanced by all these kind of benifites altogether at once.. then this would pretty much lead to a much higher price AND NOT less anyhow.

But how about the 82nd dropping with 6 Thompsons by default? Combat Engineers with 6 Grease for only 315 MP?? SAS dropping with 6 Thompson again and 2 Brens + 2 upgraded Zookas??? On and on.
Just wondering why u didn't mention any of these also on the other hand?! Do u want to add more troops dropping the same way? These are such a very special units which are limited to even smaller numbers at a time too, are u srsly up to make the 101st a special unit that is limited to only 2 squads at a time as well or what???!!!

Instead of adding suppression to Johnsons.. we could probably allow them after removing Johnson to equipe 4 Bars but therefore; no free slots for Grease anymore.

EDIT:-

Just to clarifiy it again, I meant it to be like this way...
-40 MP
An RL upgrade instead Thompsons for 40 ammo, another RL in the package.
Grease upgrade for 25 ammo adding 2 pieces which is available twice.
Bars upgrade for 45 ammo adding also 2 pieces which is available twice as well.

This means u can have 2 Grease + 2 Bar + 2 RL for multi-role.
Or 4 Grease + 2 RL for close Combat...
Or even 4 Bars with supperssion + 2 RL.
Not to mention that u can have 4 Bars + 2 Grease or 4 Grease + 2 Bars yet with suppression!!!

WHO CAN DISAGREE THIS??!! Seriously.

[Yafa]

-40 MP
An RL upgrade instead Thompsons for 40 ammo, another RL in the package.
Grease upgrade for 25 ammo adding 2 pieces which is available twice.
Bars upgrade for 45 ammo adding also 2 pieces which is available twice as well.

This means u can have 2 Grease + 2 Bar + 2 RL for multi-role.
Or 4 Grease + 2 RL for close Combat...
Or even 4 Bars with supperssion + 2 RL.
Not to mention that u can have 4 Bars + 2 Grease or 4 Grease + 2 Bars yet with suppression!!!

it looks very legit as i said , you also seem to have studied it very well before posting .. but here is my opinion ... i know that you will respect it my son ..... this is quite OP at a price of only 375 manpower !