Weapon upgrades

[|7th|Nighthawk]

Hi everyone,

there are a lot of weapon upgrades for several units in the game. I was wondering which are worth investing in general and which should be used depending on the situation.

A few examples I gathered from the forums and my (small) share of PvP gameplay:

1. Take a Grease Gun over BARs unless you plan to use the supress ability a lot.
2. Thompsons have ultra high damage burst but very long reload and thus can get you into real trouble.
3. MG34 and 42 seem to be very strong in every situation except when on the move where they are not fired at all.

There are a few more weapons I know about but here are a few weapons I am either not sure about or at doubt that they improve stuff a lot:

1. Is the G43 worth it? It says it improves long range performance but I never witnessed a big increase in firepower when buying it. It is also an expensive update so I usually don't buy it.
2. Stg 44 improves short and mid range combat. The short range one is noticeable but I am not sure about mid range. Does it negatively impact long range too?
3. What about the Bren? Does it have any drawbacks to leaving everyone with their Enfields? In the game I played yesterday, I think the enemy picked up a Bren with his Gebirgsjäger or Fallschirmjägerregiment 5 and had to wonder whether that was actually a good thing to do, given that they either use marksman rifles or battle rifle/MG hybrids.
4. What about MP40 on officers? When i played against AI, I saw a WM officer kill my whole Rifle section squad. Quite terrifying. I have to wonder whether that's only because it's AI and my units were moving or whether it's very strong in general.
5. Do units keep their respective stats with picked up or bought guns? Like is a pioneer squad with a Panzerschreck a total tool with the weapon and FJR the 1337 no scope squad with a PIAT?
6. Plays into the same category but do units get debuffs from using weapons not meant for their unit (like enemy ones)?
7. Slightly off topic: Is it worth stealing enemy AT guns? Do they have significant table changes towards enemy vehicles in comparison to the own ones? Like: Is it better to use a stolen 76mm AT gun against Shermans than using the PaK 40 or the other way around, a PaK 40 against Panzer IV?

That's it for now.

[Devilfish]

Hi,

1. Take BAR always over grease gun, unless you are in very convenient urban environment.
2. Thompson same as grease
3.Mgs almost always worth it if you can afford it.

1. Yes, g43 is well worth it. It just doesn't have the prominently visible effect as mg or smg in close quarters, but it's doing a great job.
2. Mp44 is almost always worth it. It is somehow weaker at really long distance, but mid range is exceptional and most fights end up in mid range. avoid only when creating a dedicated long range squad.
3. Bren is very powerful, take it.
4. Officers are for buffs and support, don't use them to attack except in very specific scenarios
5.Wait for Warhawk to answer about stats
6. Weapons have different modifiers against different units. So Pak will have specific efficiency against pz4 and if i recall correctly, these stats are quite unrealistic and not revised. In short I think axis are better with allied weapons than the other way around.
7. It's always worth to steal weapons and at guns/mg/mortar when possible, you will get almost free new unit/weapon and more importantly, you will prevent your opponent to take it back. This is especially important in early game.

You seem to be an interesting guy, add me on steam, wanna play some games with you, I'm AgentDunham.

Cheers

[|7th|Nighthawk]

Hi,

thanks for the detailed answer and I'll make sure to wait for Warhawks . Hm, there are two of you on Steam. Which one to pick? The woman face or the FBI one?

[Warhawks97]

The stats are based on the weapons as far as i know. It shouldnt be depending on the unit using it. How good a weapon is at the end depends on the target table. But here axis and allis usually use Tp_infantry. Exceptions exist though. Like AB having tpy_inf_AB. Most or all small arms suffer accuracy penality when this unit is moviing. Ranger use tp_infantry_riflemen_elite against which most small arms suffer accuracy penalties no matter what the squad does.
PE uses Tp_solider which is pretty much the same as tp_inf.. Just the jeep suffers accuracy penalties.

For tanks and thus AT guns it can be different as each tank often has another target table (TT). Here i once figured lots of freaky stuff (see below)

About point 3, idk if i would pick up a bren. I never really pick up allied weapons when playing axis. So BAR´s, brens do usually not improve my squad. But depends. For a pio or unupgraded volks squad it makes sense perhaps. But for an elite squad with good equipment i would never pick up allied weapons. The G43 is great. It is good at any range. It doesnt have K98 accuracy (the unscoped version) but therefore shoots pretty fast. A second faster than K98. It also has a 10 round mag and reloads extremely fast, faster than any other rifle. And its damage per bullet is massive compared to any other rifle. So perhaps at max range the boost isnt that great over k98 but improves your mid-short range power. For close range combat the stg is preferable but distant range suffers. I either have squads only with stgs and perhaps schreck. Or only ranged weapons with k98, lmg and g43.
With luftwaffe inf i would never pick up any allied weapon. The Fhr 5 doesnt need any kind of smg and lmgs in general would weaken their assault role. Gebis have lmg already and i cant imagine that a bren would give any siginificant advantage over the G43 scopped (which is just a great weapon. Semi rifle and maxium possible accuracy for a rifle bc its scopped and the damage, reload speed and magazi size of normal G43).
There is no reason for fjr and gebs to pick up any weapon unless its an lmg42 for gebis to boost their ranged combat.



Point 6 is interesting and weird. Ive once released really freaky datas about it. Idk how it is currently but there were occassions where axis used allied AT guns more effectively as allied. But in other occassions it was the other way arround. I remember that axis had some sort "smart guns" which were highly lethal in axis hands when used against "powerfull" allied tanks but when used by allied struggled to work against weaker types of axis units. With other words the target tables were "interessting" to say at best. But as i said, i would have to check it again when i am back on pc.

I would have you to catch you in discord perhaps to explain it or to give you more detailed information.

[kwok]

I steal almost everything if I can because to me it’s not about what I should or shouldn’t steal. It’s more about who steals what. For example, I’d steal anything with my pios, but never steal anything with my gebirgs. I don’t even let gebirgs pick up the mg42s because their opportunity cost to pick it up is more compared to if pios picked it up. Why have a k98 and mg42 when I can have a scoped g43 and mg42.

In terms of upgrades, those are decisions I make based on the intended role I want my inf to have. I don’t always give all my rangers Johnsons (though recently I have been) and I don’t always give all my rangers Thompsons. I would prefer to have one with only Thompson’s and one with only johnson. This gives each unit an intended role to execute a tactic. If I find an mp40 on the ground, I’ll pick up with my close quarters squad, I don’t really care about the specific stats because relatively it’s putting me ahead of the enemy.

[|7th|Nighthawk]

@Warhawks97: Interesting and yes, that's what I thought about the Luftwaffe guys. Thanks for the information, sure let's do that.

@kwok: That sounds like a sound idea in general but would you also advise British engineers to pick up MP40 and the likes? They seem to be the only support infantry to be able to dish out damage with their rifles so I am not sure whether giving one of them a CQC weapon is a good idea. Thanks!

[kwok]

My answer will always be “it depends”. I’ve definitely done it before even if infrequently.

[|7th|Nighthawk]

Okay, thanks. What about Flamethrowers? They seem to do very little initial damage and only then start being a threat. Since, except for RAF, it is only used by pioneers, is it a good idea to use it? Pioneers die very quickly, especially if they have to get close to an occupied building. I always wonder whether choosing MP40 over Flamethrowers on the PE Sturmpioniere actually improves their short time damage against occupied buildings more. Also is it any good on open fields?

What about the Little John? Does it only increase penetration or also damage?

Also US rifle grenades: Is it the worst "upgrade" ever? It removes all ability to buy other weapons and gives you the ability to shoot HEAT, frag and smoke where ever you don't want it to land. Does anyone choose it? Compare that to the Rifle section grenade launcher upgrade which does not rob you of being able to buy two Brens and actually hits something sometimes even though it cannot fire HEAT or smoke.

Oh and what about the M1919? I believe there is a tripod version for one of the Ranger squads and other rangers get the A6 without tripod? Is any of them any good? They seem to make a lot of noise and the tripod version actually works like a deployed MG but on the A6 I really did not see any big effect.

[Warhawks97]

II never used flamethrower on pios.

Little john is so far penetration. If you want i can give you numbers perhaps.

I used rifle nades and to be honest, they are a fail mostly. Even when i closed in as far as possible they didnt hit shit. Perhaps i made like 1 kill per 200 ammo spend. I gave up using them. Every other upgrade is better. The rifle nades seem to be worse then before. There i had often rifles only with AT nades running behind rangers. They were good in hitting vehicles so far. But right now.... its sometimesreally ridicolous.


I use The M1919A6 for rangers. And since their M1 Garand can hit something at range the M1919A16 gives a nice ranged combat boost.

The A4 is the tripod. Its nice. But costs. But i think its worth it.

[kwok]

Flamethrowers sadly are the only thing that I don’t care for at all. I think despite attempts to change it, they still greatly under perform except when on the croc tank variants.

Shadow is prob the king of little johns. Everyone else uses it as a “joke” or anti mortar halftrack reasons. Shadow is like “that’s core for me”.

[|7th|Nighthawk]

I have noticed that Daimler with LJ is incredibly powerful against HTs, often oneshotting them. I don't know whether that's only thanks to the adapter or whether it's just standard damage. It's great against Mortar HTs and pretty much the only counter measure the Brits have against it. Mortar HTs are an absolute nightmare to fight against unless you have heavy artillery.

Oh and yes, I tried them again yesterday, put them next to a mortar pit the enemy had taken over and they just would not shoot flames into it and then got rekt by a homing mortar grenade that exploded right next to the pit without damaging it ._.
This leads me to the next question: Are all grenades working the same basic way in terms of damage or are there differences? I have thrown a Millsbomb into a FlaK-Vierling and it just took a tiny bit of structural damage but the crew was fine. When I finally took it over, the enemy threw a Stielgranate into it and instantly killed all three while barely damaging the structure itself. So was that pure RNG or are there differences?

[Warhawks97]

The Allied grenades have shorter cooldown, lower range, lower cost and an AoE of 7. Axis have AoE of 5 and more range and higher cost and higher cooldown. But somehow they seem to have more explosives or higher ammount of it while the Allieds SoE is explained by the fragmentation effect axis doesnt have (in reality it was the same. Axis had also special fragmentation stielhandgranate that can be used by def doc in game.
So Perhaps allied nades are better in infantry combat situations due to aoe and shorter cooldown, axis better to blow up emplacments or to kill their crew due to higher damage.

That might be a possible explanation.

[|7th|Nighthawk]

Ah cool, thanks for the info. It feels better when it's not just RNG fucking you over at least I like that the Stielgranate has way higher range and it would be cool to see the mills bomb have less than the normal grenades in exchange for bigger damage or AoE, although that would probably make the rifle grenade variant of it overpowered.
I should hold my feet with lots of "useful" suggestions though ;D Does not know at all how to play mid game but already has lots of ideas - that's the kind of people a forum needs, right?

[Redgaarden]

Flamers do light damage against light vehicles and anti tank guns. 4-5 flamethower burst are usually enough to kill an anti tank gun so it can't be recrewed. You would prefer an smg for the close range combat, flamethower is for weak squads to keep enemy smg guys away. Fx Pioneers are quite good vs commandoes.

1. Take BAR always over grease gun, unless you are in very convenient urban environment.
2. Thompson same as grease
3.Mgs almost always worth it if you can afford it.

1. Garands were total garbage that it was better to replace as many of them as possilbe, the moving firepower Grease guns put out is pretty much the same as bars, but you get 2 instead of 1, and garands are still totally useless when firing on the move becasue of the -85% accuaracy on the move. So if you want to sit behinde cover and not do anything, you dont need the bars. If you want to support other infantyr when they attack, you pick riflenades. if you want to attack, you pick Grease guns. Bars should never be bought for their full price, you either buy them from a zombie rifleman after weapon cost reduction, even though they are hardly worth their 20 munitions.

2. Grease guns has higher rate of fire and same accuaracy at long range, but about same rate of fire and lower accuaracy in close range compared to thompsons. So use greaseguns as they are far more reliable than thompsons. Only use thompsons after you got your ranger upgrade from infantry doctrine. Otherwise use combat engineers since they outscale ranger intil Rangers get their vet upgrade.

3. Artillery barrages and HE are often far more important than LMG. Since you can spend 50 munitions to kill an lmg squad that pend 50-100 munition to upgrade. If the opponent you're facing are only building infantry squads and nothing more, then LMG's are worth their cost. And the Ranger lmg was good enough before as it literally did over 50% of the squads total damage output. And it's still good enough now. 2 ranger squads with lmg should beat a falls.

1. Yes, g43 is well worth it. It just doesn't have the prominently visible effect as mg or smg in close quarters, but it's doing a great job.

It's just a KAR elite with slightly higher damage per bullet. dont bother upgrading if you use Assaultgrens.

2. Mp44

the mp44 are good at long range. Kinda like greasegun with higher accuracy and damage. There is a reason why they are the "no brainer" upgrade

4. What about MP40 on officers? When i played against AI, I saw a WM officer kill my whole Rifle section squad. Quite terrifying. I have to wonder whether that's only because it's AI and my units were moving or whether it's very strong in general.

Mp40 is a strong smg. Not overpowered. Just strong. you must have attacked it when he was in green cover,

5. Do units keep their respective stats with picked up or bought guns? Like is a pioneer squad with a Panzerschreck a total tool with the weapon and FJR the 1337 no scope squad with a PIAT?

Units dont have "Stats" that make them better. Which is like before Rangers and rifles had same weapon skills. so a pioneer with an mp40 is just as good at shootign as a fallshjerm with a mp40. Veterancy does increase accuaracy though. PIAT doesn't have accuracy I think and always "misses" relyig on scatter to hit the opponent.

6. Plays into the same category but do units get debuffs from using weapons not meant for their unit (like enemy ones)?

There is no debuf. You will use the weapons just as good as the enmey does.

7. Slightly off topic: Is it worth stealing enemy AT guns? Do they have significant table changes towards enemy vehicles in comparison to the own ones? Like: Is it better to use a stolen 76mm AT gun against Shermans than using the PaK 40 or the other way around, a PaK 40 against Panzer IV?

There was the issue once that a cpatured Allied 37mm kept penetrating the frontal armor of a jumbo. So there are probably some slight things that haven't been fixed/balanced. But captured Anti tank guns are most defenitly almsot always worth it.

3. What about the Bren? Does it have any drawbacks to leaving everyone with their Enfields? In the game I played yesterday, I think the enemy picked up a Bren with his Gebirgsjäger or Fallschirmjägerregiment 5 and had to wonder whether that was actually a good thing to do, given that they either use marksman rifles or battle rifle/MG hybrids.

Not an big expert on bren of all lmgs. I would not thinks it's worth it to replace op wepoans like scoped g43 and fg42. It could be worht it on Gebrigs as LMG are quite powerful. BUt I wouldnt put them on falls as falss are an smg unit an lmgs dont really fit on those kinds. Just like it would look wrong to put mg42 on combat engineers. On a secod thought, scratch that. Lmgs are close range killers. Always pick them up!