M1 vs Kar98 close range.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Only for testing and proving purposes!

This was just an example...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoK2054cUTk

[JimQwilleran]

I dont remember anyone saying that M1 is bad at close range. Even sappers can kill volks at ultra close range. It's the long range that is a bit unfair for M1, which was quite a good weapon irl.

[Krieger Blitzer]

As well as it's quite unfair for the Kar at close range... Which was a good weapon too!

[Warhawks97]

Konfuzius said something like: "Before you discuss about something, clearify the terms".... idk the exact speech anymore.... to long ago i read stuff of him.... anyway


It seems to be a huge issue when players talk about close/mid/long/distant range.


I would say that 99% of players would tell me, that mid range is the exact middle between two units. Thing is, thats not true here. BK has weird range classification (at least for rifles, but also generally). That means that mid range is not the mid range players would expect. In fact long range values do apply at which players would call "mid range" in game.

In short: Mid range ends at Allis normal Handgrenade range (25) and panzerfuast range is where long range ends already for rifles (35 range).

So the M1 is superior to K98 at ranges below Allis Handgrenade range. Axis Handgrenade range is long range already. At long range (corsix/game engine is using) the K98 shoots already faster and much more accurate with higher bullet damage as M1. And not only slightly in terms of damage and accuracy).

So.... 0-25 range: M1 is better, though between 15-25 range (mid range) K98 has still a realistic chance to win. But add to that that on the way to get close, the US suffers losses already, if not losing a squad entirely by axis pioneer fire. When you try to get close to axis pios with Rifle squad, you will likely lose 3-4 rifle men before you got into close range, but by then the numbers matter more. And normal axis inf shoots even more accurate at range as pios (which are already better at distance shooting than rangers). And when enemie has lmgs and stgs, then you can instant retreat anyway as you would lose ranged fight, and any attempt to get close would be suicide anyway.

Also axis inf is running arround pretty much always with STG´s and it doesnt takes long to get them. So those are fucking M1 at mid and close range anyway (and even long range)



Making it clearly what i mean when i talk about ranges:

0-15: Short range, 15-25: Mid range, 25-35: Long range, 35-48: Distant range and 48-60: unclassified (thus distant range applies probably).

So when i talk about LONG RANGE buff of the M1 i do talk about the actual MID RANGE. So when M1 would be arround equal strong at long range, the K98 would still be superior from 35-60 range just because of the distant range values!


So i think the M1 should be superior at close (in game very close range, 0-15)) and mid range (in game close range/nade range, 15-25)), at long range (in game mid range/Panzerfaust range, 25-35) equal or better, but not inferior and at distant range (long-very long in game range, 35-60) the K98 would still be a bit superior.

So in the first third of the combat distances the M1 would shred clearly the K98, in middle equal, maybe an edge of m1 over K98 since axis have better weapon upgrades like g43, stg and lmgs, and at at the last third of the ranges (35-60) the K98 would be better. So K98 would afterall be superior at about 40% of total range. The rof at anytime in favour of M1 since soldier can keep tracking the target.


Did everybody understand it know? Coz when i talk about "Long range values", people do often NOT know that i talk about the actual mid ranges.


Today a funny guy really tried to convince me, that it is/was "realistic" that K98 is about 75% more accurate at grenade range (regarding axis nade range), than M1 an by shooting just as fast as the m1 (0,1 sec faster even). I had to laugh a lot first. I think every average trained/skilled soldier will be able to hit a target at grenade range just was good with M1 as with K98. Sadly its not true when regarding to axis grenade range. An axis soldier can throw nades farther with high accuracy as an US soldier can hit a target with his M1 rifle. Just think about it....

[Krieger Blitzer]

I do have some specific goals for posting that video... And it wasn't for u btw! So I am honestly not up for any kind of discussions here regarding this anyhow...

However that I would just like to comment shortly on some certain points;

So i think the M1 should be superior at close (in game very close range, 0-15)) and mid range (in game close range/nade range, 15-25)), at long range (in game mid range/Panzerfaust range, 25-35) equal or better, but not inferior and at distant range (long-very long in game range, 35-60) the K98 would still be a bit superior.

So, now u want the M1 to be more superior at close ranges like as it is already, but also better in mid range and equal or slightly worse than the Kar at long ranges??!! That's exactly what I could call as "super funny" or just insane I meant M1 this way shall be better on all aspects.
Why not to just give the Pioneers some pistols then?

Rifles actually are cheaper.. and later with the Inf doc unlocks, even more cheap!

since axis have better weapon upgrades like g43, stg and lmgs,

I disagree, 2 Bren LMGs for 110 ammo are always much better by far than a single LMG34 for 75 ammo or an LMG42 for 100 ammo...
2 or 3 Grease SMGs just for 25 ammo are always way much better than 4 MP40s for 50 ammo on the other hand.
And 2 Bars for 45 ammo is more or less equal or if not even better than 3 non scoped G43s for 50 ammo, yet both are surely able to suppress!

The Allies upgrades are always cheaper and more appealing in my opinion!!

just think about it...

Later on, with higher veterancy levels.. the Allies inf will get the same grenade throwing range as the Axis inf... And don't forget, that the Allies could have grenade rifle weapon upgrades while the Axis can't for some unknown reasons.

[Warhawks97]

So, now u want the M1 to be more superior at close ranges like as it is already, but also better in mid range and equal or slightly worse than the Kar at long ranges??!! That's exactly what I could call as "super funny"

The advantage is slightly. Depending on vet k98 can win as well. And again...the mid range (close range) advantage isnt that much.The M1 shoots just 0.25 secs faster there while accuracy is worse as well as bulet damage (talking about 15-25 range). You can win with k98 there.

Rifles actually are cheaper.. and later with the Inf doc unlocks, even more cheap!

still.... NOBODY uses that.... No dump gets the rifles for 175 MP. ITS POINTLESS and nothing but feeding. Go and make it yourself. The 10 rifles qould cost a lot of ammo for upgrades and would most of the time only feed the enmie and micro skills required is insane... you must be a god then.

I mean when i read that i would think that the russian army would have sieged Berlin in winter 41 already. Masses is not everything. tactics and a certain quality do also play a role. I would say that if germans wouldnt have lacked fuel and russians not able to improve their units (honestly their planes werent bad!) they would have never won the war by just throwing the pure masses of 1941 T-34´s. The Germans fought a three front war because of the quality mainly, you know? So quality can actually always stop at least any ammount of masses.

I disagree, 2 Bren LMGs for 110 ammo are always much better by far than a single LMG34 for 75 ammo or an LMG42 for 100 ammo...

Its the Enfield that brings the damageoutput. Brens on commandos with stg are crap afterall. The bren is so far same is BAR, just the enfield that accompanies it is twice better as m1.

2 or 3 Grease SMGs just for 25 ammo are always way much better than 4 MP40s for 50 ammo on the other hand.

?

And 2 Bars for 45 ammo is more or less equal or if not even better than 3 non scoped G43s for 50 ammo, yet both are surely able to suppress!

Keep your sweet dreams for yourself. And how can you cmpare BAR´s with G43+ it cost you 40 ammo to suppress. So when enemie players do not blobb the shit out, the ability is just a waste of res.

The Allies upgrades are always cheaper and more appealing in my opinion!!

I whish i could get something comparable for 50 as scoped G43 and stgs

But you know what? i dont want even. As for me i would make the US being very well with their M1 as best standard equipment for infantry fights while axis get their cost effective weapon upgrades. Thus i wouldnt mind increasing thompson cost to 75 ammo and reducing lmg42 to like 85 ammo.

Later on, with higher veterancy levels.. the Allies inf will get the same grenade throwing range as the Axis inf... And don't forget, that the Allies could have grenade rifle weapon upgrades while the Axis can't for some unknown reasons.

both increase range at vet 3. I gotta check who throws farther. Add to that that its harder to get vte with allied inf in most circumstances and usually later.

Also. Rifle nades= best way to waste ammo. It takes a damn weapon slot (on US) and you fire 5 of them for 100 ammo to get one hit on an enemie unit.... excellent. The CW rifle nade is bugged.... it doesnt deal damage. It explodes inside of an inf squad and draws not even HP of that squad sometimes.

[Butterkeks]

The M1 is better on close range than Kar98? Omg what shocking news... Not like anybody would have known that before...

As well as it's quite unfair for the Kar at close range... Which was a good weapon too!

How is it unfair? The Kar98 is a bolt action rifle. The M1 semi automatic.
You don't seem to understand what this means:
Bolt action rifle: Shoot, take weapon down, repeat, aim new, shoot, take down, repeat etc.
Semi-Automatic: Aim, Shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, take down, reload, aim, shoot etc.

Means: Higher Rate of fire, but normally less accuracy -> Semi-Automatic better for short ditances, Bolt action for longer distances.

So what exactly should your video proof? That it's unfair that Volks can't build Sandbags while they are shot and then also wipe out the entire enemy squad? Yeah, truly unfair...

[Krieger Blitzer]

Really now? Can't u see illa's comment above??!! I was just replying on that heck with the same of this funny logic of his... So, my video proves that the M1 should never be better at longer ranges than the Kar.. because of the reasons u just mentioned as it's realistic enough currently!

[Butterkeks]

I was actually just quite wondering what your video should prove. It shows how the M1 slaughters some volks with K98 on very close distance. Nobody ever complained about it being to uneffective at very close range. At least not vs bolt action rifles. I mean, of course it would be insane if it was better than MP40 or STG44 on close ranges, but there also never anybody complained.

So yeah, you posted it for "proving purpose" and Jim asked what exactly you want to prove with that.

This + your next comment implied that you think the K98 has to be better than M1 on close range.

I mean look at it:

I dont remember anyone saying that M1 is bad at close range. Even sappers can kill volks at ultra close range. It's the long range that is a bit unfair for M1, which was quite a good weapon irl.

As well as it's quite unfair for the Kar at close range... Which was a good weapon too!

Maybe you didn't mean it but you also don't have to react so upset. BEcause like this + the video it looks exactly like you would have complained about M1 being better than K98 on close range.

[Butterkeks]

So, my video proves that the M1 should never be better at longer ranges than the Kar.. because of the reasons u just mentioned as it's realistic enough currently!

No it proves not. It shows it's uneffectiveness on close ranges. And that's it.

Also nobody complains about the effectivness at close range, but the effectivness at mid to long range. It's like you only have to go back for one meter and M1 won't hit shit anymore.
Of course the Kar98 has to be better on long distances. But M1 doesn't hit shit and is worse than it from everything that's more than 5 meters away. And this is very unrealistic + also in terms of gameplay too weak.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Surely I am not complaining that the M1 is better at close ranges than the Kar... As I just wanted to say that if the M1 is already better only at close ranges like as supposed in reality.. then it can't be better at longer ranges too! Also cause of some balancing reasons, or it would more superior on all aspects this way.
Wish if my point is clear enough now

So ya; that's why I uploaded this video... Changing the values here must be done very carefully!! The M1 should be 'slightly' improved only in mid range.

[Butterkeks]

Thanks for making it clear

Yeah improvement in mid range, but it can't be better as Stg44. So I agree, it has to be done carefully in order to not fuck up the balance^^

[Warhawks97]

And here it comes again. The Mid range. Thing is the game considers mid range already as long range.

so AGAIN:

]Making it clearly what i mean when i talk about ranges:

0-15: Short range, 15-25: Mid range, 25-35: Long range, 35-48: Distant range and 48-60: unclassified (thus distant range applies probably).

So when i talk about LONG RANGE buff of the M1 i do talk about the actual MID RANGE. So when M1 would be arround equal strong at long range, the K98 would still be superior from 35-60 range just because of the distant range values!

From 0-15 Range: M1 is a way better. (still accuracy and damage in K98 favour)

From 15-25: M1 is a bit better, though K98 has still a chance. Depending on vet and who is reloading. K98 is more accurate here and also higher damage so it has a chance to win. (Allis max handgrenade range is 25)

From 25-60 range: K98 is CLEARLY better. It is 75% more accurate and shoots 0.1 sec faster. The Axis max Handgrenade range is 30, Panzerfaust from Volks has 35 range.

So just think about it. From 25-30 range the K98 is far superior in EVERYTHING, even RoF!

But surely Tiger will tell me now that the axis super humans could throw their handgrenades farther as the US Farmboys with their crappy M1 could hit a Target! And he wants to tell me that axis pios shoot better at mid range (30 range which is count as long range) as the US Rangers. Sounds absolutely reasonable and fair.


And when i have the intention to get into handgrenade range, then i give Sub Machine Guns to my units! I dont need a Rifle that is only effective at Machine Pistol range!

And also the K98 has a way higher damage for absolutely no reason again.

[Butterkeks]

From 0-15 Range: M1 is a way better. (still accuracy and damage in K98 favour)

Good.

From 15-25: M1 is a bit better, though K98 has still a chance. Depending on vet and who is reloading. K98 is more accurate here and also higher damage so it has a chance to win. (Allis max handgrenade range is 25)

Here's the problem. Here the M1 should be better than the Kar98. Allied nade range and K98 has a higher accuracy? This should be changed.

From 25-60 range: K98 is CLEARLY better. It is 75% more accurate and shoots 0.1 sec faster. The Axis max Handgrenade range is 30, Panzerfaust from Volks has 35 range.

This is actually also quite clear:
25-35 (Long range) Kar98 should be better. Maybe not that much, but definitely better.
35-60: Kar98 needs to be much better. It's the purpose of this weapon.

If devs could have a look at it and rethink the values of these weapons it would be great

- Slightly tuned K98 values

What exactly does this mean? Maybe the issue is already solved and the discussion is obsolete

[Krieger Blitzer]

@Hawks;
Volks can't throw nades too far... Grens are more expensive than Rangers too.. so why not? Both the US rifles and the CW inf section squads could still buy rifle nades which do have the highest grenade throwing range overall. And it's obviously effective enough once u use it good!

@Keks;
Yes, I also believe that the issues got solved already and that a further discussion would be pointless as I said above.. however that again since we don't exactly know to which extent the tuning has been made... I uploaded this then to say that it should have been done very carefully now!

[Warhawks97]

So from 25 til 60 is ok when K98 is clearly better? For me 25-30 range is mid range, not long range. I mean three ranges going from 0-35 and from 35-60 we have just one value.

you should know that till 25 range machine pistols are quite deadly already. At that range all sub machine guns are deadly and suprior to rifles already. AT so called long range (25-35) at which M1 sucks hard already the STG shreds inf away already (being very accurate at that distance still).



So i think till 35 range the M1 should be pretty deadly with good rof and acceptable accuracy. The rof should be max every 2.25 seconds a shot, accuracy from 35-60 range lower as K98.

The Rangers should be better as Rifles, but they have pretty much same M1 stats.

So simply the performence drop of M1 against targets which are beyond Allis nade range is toooo extrem. And when a rifle isnt better than a machine pistol and only effective at sub machine gun range, whats the point of a rifle then? Nobody has ever answered that question. Not even Mighty Tiger could give me a fair and reasonable answer.


[quote="Tiger1996"]@Hawks;
Volks can't throw nades too far... Grens are more expensive than Rangers too.. so why not? Both the US rifles and the CW inf section squads could still buy rifle nades which do have the highest grenade throwing range overall. And it's obviously effective enough once u use it good!

srsly??? I´ve spend one year attemtping to figure out how to be anyhow successfull with rifle nades and rifle squads playing inf doc. I used only rifle squads (up to 10) using all time captain and these rifle nades. Result was that i could beat some beginner luftwaffe players but had an insane ammo cost. A simple sherman with HE is much more worth than 5 rifle squads with rifle nades which cost are infinite and with low success. Rifle nade upgrade would make sense when taking not away a weapon slot or when being as a global upgrade in the WSC.

Every rifle nade upgrade alone cost me 35 ammo, every shot cost 20! And just every third or fourth is an worthy hit! I spend that cost for arty rather as for rifle nades!

And well... grens: 400 mp+stg or K98 and lmg and you can do "deploy and go". 360 MP for rangers+ thompsons (and double the upkeep of grens which changes in late game first) and you get shred usually before reaching a target. Even with two ranger squads + smoke from mortar i suffered high losses from mgs and lmgs which are on every axis unit. When i get one ranger squad with lmg fighting on range then i barely beat volks (esspecially as those can quickly get sandbags wherever they stand).

So yeah.... 360 MP and what.....to kill anything really or doing any effective offensive fight i do need at least a second squad. Also axis pay less for their vehicles like for their puma with 20 mm and so the slightly higher cost for grens returns for cheap and deadly vehicles. Maybe that changes with cheaper greyhound.

[Krieger Blitzer]

But I don't have to answer that question as I already said that the M1 has to be improved... Yet, just very carefully I must say.. so here I am not even pointing at u anyhow! I am just hinting the devs about it now.