Thompson And FG42

[Redgaarden]

I wish to petition for a small thompson Buff and small Fg42 Debuff my concerns are that the thompson is fireing a tad to little while the fg42 fire a tad too much. Disclaimer: Even though I mentioned both these weapons I will not compare them together under any cirumstances

Currently the thompson represents the higest tier smg the US force can currently muster. As such is has been given the misunderstanding that it is supperior than the supposedly lower tier smg: The m3 grease gun. However this is not entirely true, yes it has higher dmg, accuracy and burst, I find it extremly flawed for the following reasons. It has a cooldown of 3.0-3.5 secs compared to the 1 sec cooldown of the grease gun with a 1.5 modifier on long range. It has a magazine size of "1" and a burst of 11 which results in 2 bursts for a total of 22 bullets per reload. The cooldown and modifier means that at max range this weapon will take over 4.5 secs to shoot after each volley, 50% longer cooldown really affects the gun compared to any other smg, for example the greasegun with a small cd of 1 will only get a 0.5 sec debuff while the Thompson gets a 1.5 sec debuff.
And at close range it wil empty its magazine in 2 secs and spend the majority of its time reloaidng the gun instead of participating in the fight.
I said it had higher accuracy, this is only partly true since this only affect minimum range. Making it compareable to the m3 grease gun at max range, but alot slower firing rate (or alot less overall bullets).

It is a strong close range weapon as it should, but inconsitant making it lose to most other smgs. It suffers the most at long range even compared to other smgs. I would change the following: Change Burst to 10 and magazine to 2 for an overall of 30 bullets, This will make the smg 9% worse at long range but around 30% better at close range, since this is only theorytical I can't say for certain. It could end up being 100% better since it actually kills the target.
Conclusion still as shitty max range. Still it's only strong point being a close range burst weapon. (I think I found thompson similiar to shotgun but shotgun better max range)

FG42. Currently it is similar in performance to the M1918 B.A.R with the common axis higher dmg/accuarcy than allies buff. And being an smg instead of an lmg...

Yes an smg with lmg stats. If I should put a fair price for FG42 it would prob be around 60 muni per gun since it's comparable to the 55muni bren but can fire on the move never reloading, higher accuracy and dmg. meaning falls get over 300munitions worth of combat equipment excluding the shreck. My suggestion would to be put them more in line of johonsons and bars and making so that their ammo clip is to their historical 20 round clip instead of their current 44 round clip.

I would like to ask you people how to balance the fg42 since I havn'et done that much research on it. But I stand firm on that the thompson should get changed. Not that it needs to but becasue it's misleading people that it will kill things at close range when it doesn't.

On another note option 2 for the fg42 is lowering it's close range dps making it more of a mobile lmg than a long range smg. But I stand firm on lowering the mag size to 20 rounds.

-Redgaarden

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I agree that Thompson could have a buff. FG42 is fine imo, it was a masterpiece of its time and weapon represented really good (cool stats but few numbers, 12 rifles max).

[Redgaarden]

I'm not 100% sure how stats work since I have seen the thompson shoot, reload and then shoot again with small delay since the reload is shorter than the cooldown. So I dont know when the cooldown starts. Is it when it starts firing the burst? or after it finished the burst? if the cooldown starts after the burst I would almost reccoemnd having a 0.1 modifier minimum range instead of 0.3. If the cooldown starts at same time as the burst starts it doens't need to be change. I suspect it's the latter since there is the option of winddown on all weapons.

I would also suggest giving the bazooka a 8-10 secs reload instead of a 20 secs reload. Just ask and I can explain why I think the bazooka needs a lower reload than the panzersherck. Hint hint ^^

[Redgaarden]

FG42 is fine imo, it was a masterpiece of its time and weapon represented really good (cool stats but few numbers, 12 rifles max).

I agree it should be powerful. But there is a certain "logic" with these weapons. I only suggest that it shoul have same logic as the Allied weapons and should not be that much supperior. Even if it got nerfed down to BAR stats which I dont think it should you still get 120 worth of muni (allied doc) or 270 muni (Non) allied doc + a panzershreck.

And the 44round mag should defently go down to 20 rounds.

And I remember the BAR being better in one catagory than the FG42 in stats. But I can't remember which, maybe it was cooldown modifiers.


And 12 rilfes max is a big number since general axis players only use 2-3 squads of infantry at once.

[Panzerblitz1]

You don't get it, thompsons aren't accurate at mid/long range the practical combat range of the thompson was 50 meters MAX due to the heavy 45 ACP huge drop after that distance, but at short range the stopping power of the 45 ACP was devastating, the Fg42 is accurate and a killer at all distance (0-600 meters) thanks to his excellent long barrel in a very compact rifle design with the great 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridge used in Kar's & MG's 34/42.

So, you have pretty much a big fat pistol round versus a high profiled rifle/MG round... who's gonna win on the field at mid long/range? And don't make the mistake to think the Mauser 7.92 cartridge wasn't efficient at short range either

Also even if the Fg42 had a greater rate of fire than the Thompson it wasn't an Lmg at all, far from it, you also can't compare the Weight of a B.A.R. who was a Lmg alright to the light Fg42 assault rifle, similar in use to the Stg44 by the way, the Grease and thompson guns (who shares the same ammo) are submachine guns.

Values in bk are correct, and will stay that way.

You can feel here what it is about ...

FG42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NstrbkCg_ks

Thompson + Grease gun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8sy1sHMX9k

[MarKr]

Thompson fires 10 bullets per burst, at close range the cooldown is 0.9-1.2. Reload takes at close range 3-3.75 seconds. That is 20 bullets per magazine, 6 guns in a squad that is 120 bullets, 90% accuracy at close range makes on average 108 bullets to hit enemy. Damage is 12-18 (15 on average) so damage per burst would be around 1620 (108*15). Storms are one of the most resilient soldiers on axis side, each has 90HP that is 540 per entire squad so if you get a Thompson squad close enough you could theoretically kill 2 Storm squads before your thompsons need to reload. Storms with Veterancy unlock have 25% damage reduction so the Thompson damage output would be 1215 which is stil enough to kill the Storm squads. Yes, I know that in such situation Storms will kill some of your soldiers so the damage drops but at close range they are devastating - and that is where you need to use them, at close range. Compa

Also Thompson was an SMG while FG42 was NOT an SMG as you say but a semi-automatic rifle. As Sukin said, it was a real masterpiece in its time. So I would say the stats are justified as they are.

EDIT: Sorry, FG42 was not semi-automatic but selective-fire rifle

[Lionelus]

Hello everybody

As MarKr said, FG42 was not an SMG. You could'nt run and spray with it, and it was not made for close range firefights

Things is that FG42 is performing like an SMG in game, and seems to do even better. For balance reasons I guess
I've checked FG42 stats on Corsix, and it's insane. If i'm correct :
- FG42 burst 4 times, firing 40 bullets, before needing reload. Each bullet is 21 damage on average.
- there is an average 1.75 second cooldown between bursts, which is reduced to 0,35 second at short range
- While on the move, FG42 has a 0.75 accuracy multiplier, like Thompson and other SMG

With this, you have a very decent mid / long range rifle, for the sheer amount of bullet you'll fire. And a deadly close quarter SMG style weapon.

Luft needed this, in the past, though. But today ? does Luft really need such insane weapons stats ? (same with Gerbirs and scoped G43)
With the air strikes buff and the Panzer Grenadiers price reduction, I feel a little nerf wouldn't do too much harm to Luft doc.

Today nobody dare using infantry versus Luft. Even if you outmaneuver Fallschim and succeed in getting close, 82nd airborne, rangers and commandos will lose. Which is not normal : if Fallschim got caught up close quarter, they should lose to SMG specialist troopers

If you wish to balance this out, I would say the following :
1)- reduce accuracy on the move. Give 0.5 moving accuracy, like other weapons of its category (Johnson, BAR)
2)- higher cooldown at short range. 0,35 second between bursts, this is a bit too fast ; it's similar to SMG in game
3)- reduce number of shot per burst. 10 is too much. 10 bullets, that's an SMG spray. The weapon wasn't even used that way
or
4)- reduce number of bursts before reloading. FG42 can burst 4 times, firing 40 bullets, before reloading : this is too much again. FG42 had a 20 box magazine
(3 or 4. it could be 2 bursts of 10 bullets. Or 4 bursts of 5 bullets.)

All of these would reduce FG42 DPS, and give a chance to Allies players to try and fight them off with infantry. Today, when people see Falschim, they counter with snipers, mortar, light vehicules and tanks, and start camping. I want to see some Rangers and Fallschim clashing in awesome duels


EDIT :
As for Thompson, only cooldown between bursts should be reduced. - Thompson has a 1,05 second cooldown at short range, and 3,5 second at medium range. This is too much
- M3 grease gun has 0.375 second (average) cooldown at short range : that's why Grease gun seems to have more punch. 1,25 s at medium range
- Stg44 has an average 0,25 second cooldown ; 1,25 s at medium range
- MP40 has an average 0.525 s cooldown ; 1,75 s at medium range

With this cooldown duration, Thompson ends up not firing that much, whereas it is supposed to spray bullet at close range continuously (what other SMG actually do in game)

Same issue with Commando Sten : 1,05 second cooldown short range, and 3,5 second at medium range
(in Corsix : cw_sten_smg_silencer)


what do you people think ?

[Krieger Blitzer]

I think that everything should just stay as it is here.

[Redgaarden]

4)- reduce number of bursts before reloading. FG42 can burst 4 times, firing 40 bullets, before reloading : this is too much again. FG42 had a 20 box magazine

Was the main thing I wanted to point out.

hompson fires 10 bullets per burst, at close range the cooldown is 0.9-1.2. Reload takes at close range 3-3.75 seconds. That is 20 bullets per magazine, 6 guns in a squad that is 120 bullets, 90% accuracy at close range makes on average 108 bullets to hit enemy. Damage is 12-18 (15 on average) so damage per burst would be around 1620 (108*15). Storms are one of the most resilient soldiers on axis side, each has 90HP that is 540 per entire squad so if you get a Thompson squad close enough you could theoretically kill 2 Storm squads before your thompsons need to reload. Storms with Veterancy unlock have 25% damage reduction so the Thompson damage output would be 1215 which is stil enough to kill the Storm squads. Yes, I know that in such situation Storms will kill some of your soldiers so the damage drops but at close range they are devastating - and that is where you need to use them, at close range. Compa

Yes the dmg can be high but it requires extreme mirco and there are many factors you can't even do anything about that will try to fuck you up. This is pretty much what will happen: Rangers sprints at target, Rangers reach the target, Rangers dont shoot becasue they are either reloading/on cooldown, Rangers shoot target wich is most likely hiding in a crater losing 50% of it's accuaracy and are firing on the move suffering from movement penalty. 2-3 enemies die, Rangers get wiped. And that is a relative good engagement where about 4-5 rangers participate in the close range assault.

I think Thompsons should be balanced for their actual combat performance and not their therotical potentional dmg. It's almost like saying sherman 76 can win over a Tiger you just have to get close to him. Or that is what it sounds like to me you're saying Rangers can kill storms 2 times over as long as you're close to them.


Angry rant from here on out no need to take this bit seriously.
------
If you want your thompsons to reach their max dmg more easily you should remove their fire on the move ability. This way it would require less mirco and there are less factors going to ruin your max potentional dmg. But that would make them pretty much garands, only that garands deliver their payloads in segmends instead of bursts. Heck you could even replace them with shotguns.
I know their max dmg is the higest of all smgs and i have tried to what you told me about for a long time but not even once have I pulled of a perfect 6 man smg burst. And there have been situations where the enemy stood still with their backs turned and it still didn't go as you stated above, please dont say it just requires a little skill to pull this off. I know some people that would have even harder time than me and I am having a really hard time atm. Pulling of these close range thompson anhilations are harder than doing dark souls parries. And I dont think they are as devestating close range as you you state since almost any other weapon is more dangures close range than thompson except for bolt action guns.
Still angry rant ----
And why the hell do you want the squishy rilfemen have better smgs than rangers? not only is the 4smg 2 rifles the weirdest combination of units they serve almost no pupose. And why does the fg42 have to be better close range than the best close range weapon americans has? and still be better in max range than all american weapons except m1919. Why do the american be so bad at everything that they need to be in bigger numbers AND close range? couldn't you suffice with one, that you either should be bigger numbers OR close range?!?
End of angry rant----

[Lionelus]

For Thompson and Sten, you could reduce range, so they shoot only at medium and close range, thus, saving bullets for close quarter firefights.
That won't be a problem: those weapons have so low long range accuracy, it would be pretty much the same as not firing at all.


To answer the angry rant

BK always have been this way. As it is a community based mod, changing thing is very difficult, as it has to please everyone. And it seems most people play Axis around.

I remember those day when US didn't even have the M3 37mm gun in HQ. To get rid of early vehicules and PE spam scout cars, you had to use Bazooka (unlock after weapon support center). Very very hard time for US players.

People first reaction was to say no to this little canon : "get close with bazooka", "flank the scout car", "ambush", "there is no need to add this AT gun". So many nice piece of advice, you could translate by "be skillful". Playing allies was and is still very challenging. Most small US weapons require to be medium/close range to be effective : M1 Carbine, Garand, Thompson, Grease gun

Allies are good now I would say. But many tools and features are not working properly.

Thompson and Sten are one of these tools not working well and in need of some balance.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Red, sometimes I really never get what you are actually complaining about...

This is pretty much what will happen: Rangers sprints at target, Rangers reach the target, Rangers dont shoot becasue they are either reloading/on cooldown, Rangers shoot target wich is most likely hiding in a crater losing 50% of it's accuaracy and are firing on the move suffering from movement penalty. 2-3 enemies die, Rangers get wiped. And that is a relative good engagement where about 4-5 rangers participate in the close range assault.

I could pretty much say that usually this isn't the case anyhow.. but on the absolute contrary; I often see that Axis infantry are forced or obliged in some way to run into close range towards Allied SMGs. Allied vehicles (at least the majority of them) are extremely fast and maneuverable... Which makes it much harder for Axis infantry to "hit and run" using Schrecks, unless they keep running after or chasing those fast vehicles.. but at this point, the vehicles are always protected by Allied close range SMG squads.

SO, like i said.. it's not that you would run into Axis infantry at close range... But in fact the complete opposite! Axis infantry would be forced to run into close range right at your SMG squads. Which would be more like a suicide, due to the superiority of Allied SMGs at close range. This is how Thompsons, Stens, and Grease guns are often used! Or maybe you could ambush using your Rangers and CQB squads... Waiting for the opponent to come closer, then to quickly wipe him out. This is how they are meant to be used... You aren't supposed to fight FG42 at medium range!

Not to mention that sometimes you don't even have to run at close range in order to reach Axis inf, but simply deploying a Glider in the middle of 2 Volk squads for example.. and they are both most likely dead. Even if 1 Volks squad had MP40, they still wouldn't be able to compete! Simply because just 4 MP40s for 50 ammo won't be enough to challenge a Commando squad with 6 Sten SMGs + smoke ability which greatly decreases incoming accuracy and suppression.

Same thing with CQB squads... You just have to deploy them right next to any poor Volks or even Grens.. and then their souls would be sent to heavens only in a matter of few seconds, thanks to Thompsons.
Or how about 6 Grease SMGs with Combat Engineer squads right at the start of the game? in low res games, Axis even won't be able to upgrade MP40s by that time yet. But even if they are lucky enough to upgrade, again just 4 MP40s for 50 ammo won't be enough to compete with 6 Grease SMGs for no ammo cost at all.
But now you might be wondering, why would u need the Thompson then if Grease guns are already doing the job? Well, you don't really have to use Thompsons! They are just an optional upgrade which boosts close range performance, you can choose to have them if you have enough munition. Same for Sten Commandos... Thompsons are just an optional upgrade.

So, don't speak like if Thompsons are only equipped to Rangers. Because not only Rangers could have Thompsons! Pretty much every Allied unit could have them.. including 101st squads. While FG42s on the other hand are strictly limited in numbers, just 12 ones in total for 2 Fallis. Keeping in mind u would even lose 2 FG42 if you grab the PanzerSchrecks! So, basically just 10 FG42s are available in the whole game... Thompsons are UNLIMITED the other way around!!!

Bottom line is; plain Crosix values can NEVER tell you about the real game-play situation... So, stop digging in Crosix so deep, as it can be harmful sometimes.. and will negatively influence the way how you are objectively looking at the overall balance picture.

[Redgaarden]

But now you might be wondering, why would u need the Thompson then if Grease guns are already doing the job? Well, you don't really have to use Thompsons! They are just an optional upgrade which boosts close range performance, you can choose to have them if you have enough munition.

Currently the thompson represents the higest tier smg the US force can currently muster. As such is has been given the misunderstanding that it is supperior than the supposedly lower tier smg: The m3 grease gun.

I always use greaseguns, hell even the m1garand can do the same job as the thompson atm m1g are actually quite the good close range weapon. I only thought that since the m1 thompson is more expensive than the m3 grease gun it should be better too. And the "close range boost" is hardly need if the only thing you need is sit around, I feel like currently the only advantage the thompson has compared to the m1garand is the smaller movement penalty.

This is how they are meant to be used... You aren't supposed to fight FG42 at medium range!

Disclaimer: Even though I mentioned both these weapons I will not compare them together under any cirumstances

1st I think fg42 would win even in close range. 2nd I never really wanted to compare them since i regard the fg42 as an lmg.

I could pretty much say that usually this isn't the case anyhow.. but on the absolute contrary; I often see that Axis infantry are forced or obliged in some way to run into close range towards Allied SMGs. Allied vehicles (at least the majority of them) are extremely fast and maneuverable... Which makes it much harder for Axis infantry to "hit and run" using Schrecks, unless they keep running after or chasing those fast vehicles.. but at this point, the vehicles are always protected by Allied close range SMG squads.

I belive this is true because the american can't push against axis infantry and vice versa. And this is also one of the points I wanted to raise US infantry doesn't need smgs to hold away charging axis infantry this is the one thing the m1 garand can actually do. Heck I dont think you'd catch the vehicles even if the infantry wasn't there. The only reason the "smg infantry" are there is beacuse players have nothing better to spend their resorces on (or so they think)

Bottom line is; plain Crosix values can NEVER tell you about the real game-play situation... So, stop digging in Crosix so deep, as it can be harmful sometimes.. and will negatively influence the way how you are objectively looking at the overall balance picture.

I knew all these things before I used corsix. Corsix only confirmed my suspicion.

So, don't speak like if Thompsons are only equipped to Rangers. Because not only Rangers could have Thompsons! Pretty much every Allied unit could have them.. including 101st squads. While FG42s on the other hand are strictly limited in numbers, just 12 ones in total for 2 Fallis. Keeping in mind u would even lose 2 FG42 if you grab the PanzerSchrecks! So, basically just 10 FG42s are available in the whole game... Thompsons are UNLIMITED the other way around!!!

The reason why I use ranger is because that is what I have used most of and based my text from my experince with them.
I only seen 101st use thompsons once and I'm pretty sure I could actually see him regretting that choice.
You can easily put that shreck in another squad but since 5 fg42s are more than enough to deal with whatever is classified as infantry, they just put the shreck in the fall squad. And the rarity/commons is not a big issue, I have seen people complain that 1 king tiger at the time is too much so I dont see why 10-12 rilfes (2 squads) is too little/much. And I have heard that there are unlimited axis heavy tanks quite numerous times.

[Lionelus]

Corsix stats influence how people play and the in-game situations. Not the other way around.

If thompson are used that way, defensively, ''this is how they are meant to be used" and you feel forced to run into SMG (poor tiger), that's because Thompsons are underperforming in all other tasks, especially close range assault. So, poor stats result in people not using Thompson on the offensive but as a defensive weapon

And sending commando glider ? nice Vanilla noob tactic. In BK, the glider would get destroy upon landing, before dropping the troops.

I won't point out any further how much inconsistent is Tiger1996 post.

Back to the topic
Here are simple ideas to make everybody happy

FG42
1)- reduce accuracy on the move. Give 0.5 moving accuracy, like other weapons of its category (Johnson, BAR)
2)- slightly increase cooldown at short range. 0,35 second between bursts, this is a bit too fast ; it's similar to SMG in game
3)- reduce number of shot per burst. 10 is too much. 10 bullets, that's an SMG spray.
or
4)- reduce number of bursts before reloading. FG42 can burst 4 times, firing 40 bullets, before reloading : this is too much again. FG42 had a 20 box magazine

(3 or 4. it could be 2 bursts of 10 bullets. Or 4 bursts of 5 bullets.)


Thompson and Sten
1) Reduce weapon range
2) Reduce cooldown between bursts


bye

[MarKr]

I know that the calculation can be further affected by other factors such as cover, abilities etc. just as you said but in your example you say that opponent is in some crater that lowers accuracy of Thompsons, true. On the other hand your troops usually run through some craters or near cover too so it is not like the opponent's stats are untouched.

Sort of angry response...but not really "angry" as in "pissed off" but more in an "irritated-but-overall-no-hard-feelings" way
-------------
What I see as the biggest problem of this topic is that you want to change stats of the weapon because you don't like how it performs but you don't consider the whole impact of such change.
Thompsons are (can be) used by Assault Engineers, Rangers, Infiltration Rangers, CQB, 101st, 82nd, AB HQ squad, Commandos and SAS. This change would buff all these squads. Axis infantry is more expensive because it was designed in the game to be used in lower numbers but with efficiency than Allied troops. This change would make them die faster while still cost the same - axis will cry for price reduction on their infantry...if we do that, it might somewhat balance the Axis infantry early stages of the game but Axis infantry gets passive buffs in form of upgrade or unlocks so later on they will become more effective while being cheaper than they are now.
FG42 is probably the best infantry weapon in the game and it is only available to 2 squads at a time. It cannot be dropped or in any way transfered to other infantry around. Reg5 are expensive elite units so they perform very good but still they can be countered by snipers quite well and don't work as "one unit army" as people used to use them before. So the performance of FG42 (given its limitation) is not really a problem for me. On the other hand buffing Thompsons, which are available to many units, has the potential for breaking balance. Not to mention that if you combine units, you can use BARs to suppress the opponent, then sprint close with some unit with Thompsons and finish them off - if opponent doesn't retreat, his unit is lost...also as Tiger said in situations when you use the Thompsons in defensive way and opponent needs to come to you, the weapon is not that bad at all. Abilities are another aspect - units have abilities that allow them win situations which they would have lost without the abilities which is another reason why simple comparison of weapon stats in corsix provides limited view on the overall performance.

We already announced on the BK Facebook page that Infiltration rangers will gain Crawl ability in the next patch, this will allow them to use the full potential of their SMGs...we'll see how effective it will be.

EDIT:

Corsix stats influence how people play and the in-game situations. Not the other way around.

I am not sure if this is always true. We tell people about stats and options they might use but they still do/use what they "feel" is better or persistently keep claiming that what they "feel" is true and "your numbers are wrong" so sometimes people use less effective options because they have a feeling that it is actually stronger and then they don't understand why they lost in the situation...just saying.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I think topic can be finished at this point, Mark and Tiger explained everything very well. Imo luft is in a good spot right now, it used to be OP, then sucked hardly, then OP with reg.5 again, but now finally its good enough, RAF and AB are still much better on their own and will beat luft in 1v1 in most cases, but in team fights they are somehow competetive. Also keep in mind that you can get all 4 Luft squads which are elite, badass and so on ending in having them as dead weight since enemy camps arround with emplacements, snipers using HE vehicles as assault weapon, at this point it could be more profitable to have Volks squad since they ll do the same job for twice lesser price.

[Redgaarden]

Sort of angry response...but not really "angry" as in "pissed off" but more in an "irritated-but-overall-no-hard-feelings" way

Glad I got to convey my feelings so spot on with my text. I must admit I didn't really think about all the units that would get affected by this buff. I only used them on rangers as infnatry doctrine. But I must say that all of this is not coming from corsix it was pretty obvious for me at the start that the gun didn't kill the enemy, I have had alot of problems with this defected gun.
But I found my ways to deal with it, if I want a 6 man smg squad I will now get combat engineers since they cost 315mp + better guns instead of 360mp, 100muni + worse gun. I only wanted this change so no one else would share the same experience as me for example losing my 6 x thompson to 3 x mp44 3 x kar gren squad. The gun is misleading especially for vcoh players thinking that rangers is best squad in the game(was what I thought when I started the game). Corsix only helped me find the flaw my first thought was that it's because they had lost their 50% burst while moving, but I found out that was something all the smgs had lost. I only wanted the gun to feel good I didn't really think about the balance becasue I never intended to use them anymore anyway.
I repsect your decision for not changing the gun. And I will maybe make a new post about replacing the Ranger smg (last part was a joke)

and about the fg42 could we make it a 20 round magazine? Like giving retreating units a chance to retreat?

[MarKr]

But I found my ways to deal with it, if I want a 6 man smg squad I will now get combat engineers since they cost 315mp + better guns instead of 360mp, 100muni + worse gun. I only wanted this change so no one else would share the same experience as me for example losing my 6 x thompson to 3 x mp44 3 x kar gren squad.

Well, Rangers have more HP so they survive better so the lower price has its trade off too. Another thing is the situation of 6x thompson lose to 3x MP44 + 3x Kar98...
This is another difference in comparing US to Axis infantry. Def doc infantry gets massive bonus with Def unlock when in cover, Terror Grens with Zeal get bonuses based on how many losses they take so killing them makes them stronger...
Allied soldiers get bonuses from Vet and command units, axis have these passive bonuses which are usually not visible and also stack with vet and aura so when they go against each other the "stock" rangers look like they suck hard but it is actually stock unit vs buffed unit.

[Panzerblitz1]

To close this topic, Both weapons are correctly set and working well in game, buffing/nerfing those weapons will lead to a little catastrophy especially when it is not justified.
There is more to take in count that just corsix weapons values here, Mark already answered why.

Topic locked.

[Warhawks97]

Red, where you get 44 round clip from? or 22 for thompson?

FG42 has 0.5 burst and 10 rounds per sec. (The rof means per sec, not that certain burst).

and reload frequency is 4. So it reloads after 5 bursts. That makes 25 round mag.

I wrote markr about that more than a year ago in pm. The old devs were very accurate when it came to small arms rof and mag size. Sadly they made random shit for vehicle and tank MG´s.

I found only the fg42 having 5 rounds to many in the mag.

The Thompson has 0.91 sec burst and 11 rounds per sec. So exactly 10 per burst. Reload is 1 (which surprises me now). So it has really only a 20 round mag in game? The thompson had 20, 30 mags (and 50 and 100 round mags with that fat round magazin you can see in mafia movies). Maybe it could really get a 30 round mag.

Thing with cooldown is not just a thompson issue. Sten has same issue. I think issues with commandos could have been solved by changing just that.

ive been thinking about reasons for that and my thought was that advancing rangers should have kept ammo in reserve when they get close enough and thus having this kind of cooldown. In close combat, however, its a drawback.

When i figured that out i stopped using thompson on rangers (unless i had huge numbers of them). Instead i kept the M1 with overall better performence coz it has chances to kill. Esspecially after M1 range accuracy improvment the Thompson became obsolet to me. Before M1 was just like an sub machine gun just worse. M1 and lmg became my choice for combat combined with vehicles.

Another reason for that was that rangers are harder to hit while not moving (yes, not moving). So M1, lmg, cover and not moving ended up better in engagments as Thompson and suicide rushes. Rangers and thompson can become usefull when you have 3 squads and 1-2 mortar that fire smoke.

[Panzerblitz1]

To close this topic, Both weapons are correctly set and working well in game, buffing/nerfing those weapons will lead to a little catastrophy especially when it is not justified.
There is more to take in count that just corsix weapons values here, Mark already answered why.

Topic locked.

Edit: Locked.