Kiyonao Ichiki May 20, 2013 @ 4:00pm
Japanese buff not needed, an obvious weapon is missing. Also, fixed guns.
Everyone keeps saying the Japanese need some sort of buff... I disagree.. They just need one of their other machine guns, the Type 11. The Type 11 was a common Japanese machine gun that was going out of production when the war with the US began- but still remained in service. It uses a hopper instead of a magazine so it can be topped off easily- but the best part is, it uses the same 5-round stripper clips that the Type 38 rifle uses (6.5mm). This would mean that not only could men resupply once, like usual- but also the soldier equipped with the Type 11 could use Type 38 ammo he picked up- giving the machine gunner better fire potential in-game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_11_light_machine_gun

Also- for both sides, fixed machine guns are death-traps. Hardly anyone can use them to the effectiveness they would have had in real life. Heavy machine guns were the focal point of good defensive positions and their gunners were responsible for enormous casualties. Fixed machine gun positions in game aren't nearly as survivbale as they should be- gunners would be very hard to hit because real machine gun positions are generally either hidden with a limited field of fire, or well fortified with a limited field of fire... Any gun in the open (like they are in game) would be able to be traveresed a lot more than they can be. Fixed positions would require flanking movements to be defeated in real life.. In game, none of them have good cover and none of them can traverse well. No-one can survive on one for more than a few seconds, usually because the gunner is totally exposed from all directions and can't fire likewise- which would never be the case.

For all those pointing out how deadly a particular fixed gun on the Iwo Jima map is: A single gun in one map is not a good example. The rest of the guns are not good. The Japanese weren't as stupid as the maps make them out to be, neither were the americans... Most Japanese fixed positions were almost unasailable from the front- as any properly fortified position should be. (It should be very, very, very hard to shoot a machine gunner from the front.)

The point is, machine guns that aren't covered from the direct sides, protecting their crew, should be able to traverse to the sides to protect them instead. Otherwise, they'd have sandbags/logs/whatever stacked all the way up to the direct limits of their field of fire- and overhead cover to the direct limits of their elevation--- And it would be just big enough for the barrel and the line of sight to swing back and forth, no larger..

I suppose I can wait for maps in the workshop to give me some realistic fixed-fighting positions..

Edit: For the record, I was a real infantryman and I study military history. I also happen to really like video games.


Last edited by Kiyonao Ichiki; May 20, 2013 @ 10:04pm
Showing 1-15 of 17 comments
< >
[~SoØ~] Soyu May 20, 2013 @ 4:02pm 
I totally agree.
STARSBarry May 20, 2013 @ 4:06pm 
there also missing the type 97 sniper rifle... while you might ask why I would like a less powerfull bolt action, the fact its based off the long type 38 rifle means it had bassicaly no flash, great for snipers who wish to remain hidden and can pull of headshots frequently (where the lower calibur shell would not matter)
Wiener HerZog May 20, 2013 @ 4:07pm 
Agree, you can also post this on the TWI forum.
Alienasa May 20, 2013 @ 4:08pm 
I agree that the Type 11 should be added. I don't agree that fixed MG's are deathtraps, at least not all of the time. A well timed usage of the fixed MG's in Iwo Jima is lethal to anything in the field of view of the gunner.
Kiyonao Ichiki May 20, 2013 @ 4:09pm 
Originally posted by STARSBarry:
there also missing the type 97 sniper rifle... while you might ask why I would like a less powerfull bolt action, the fact its based off the long type 38 rifle means it had bassicaly no flash, great for snipers who wish to remain hidden and can pull of headshots frequently (where the lower calibur shell would not matter)

Yes... But I don't think the Type 97 sniper rifle would add a lot to the balance... The flash might be small- but victims of snipers attacks often lived to talk about it. It was that weak. Pulling off headshots should be very difficult.
PuMa May 20, 2013 @ 4:20pm 
Originally posted by Alienasa NL:
I agree that the Type 11 should be added. I don't agree that fixed MG's are deathtraps, at least not all of the time. A well timed usage of the fixed MG's in Iwo Jima is lethal to anything in the field of view of the gunner.
I absolutely agree with this statement. The HMG in 'F' bunker is a deadly deadly gun.
Menhennett May 20, 2013 @ 4:41pm 
Definetly agreed that the japanese should have the Type 11 added (great MG) and a good HMG position on Guadalcanal, and Iwo Jima can really deal some damage on the advancing Marines/ or Japanese
Sir Tobias May 20, 2013 @ 5:25pm 
i really missed the Type 11 in defensive Maps.
Koizumi May 20, 2013 @ 5:32pm 
agreed would be fun good thing is its a Beta so if thye listen we might get it
BITEZ Za Dusto~ May 20, 2013 @ 5:38pm 
I would like to see it as well in-game, but are you sure they were very common? with only under 30,000 produced?
Kiyonao Ichiki May 20, 2013 @ 6:06pm 
Originally posted by lazerBAR:
I would like to see it as well in-game, but are you sure they were very common? with only under 30,000 produced?

Less Type 100's SMG's were produced than that, yet it's in the game. The Type 96 and 99 light machine guns are almost identical... The Type 11 would be the best answer.
Omnomnomnivore May 20, 2013 @ 9:12pm 
hmm type 96 oiled the rounds which increased jamming problems type 99 did away with this
Inq *Quaffs a potion* May 20, 2013 @ 11:17pm 
Fully agree, I hoped that it did exist but as some kind of late-unlock.
Mancomb Seepgood May 21, 2013 @ 12:17am 
Agreed!!
FlashBurn May 21, 2013 @ 9:09am 
I agree totally with what you said. I was a Cav Scout. Almost all fixed defesive positions in RO2 and this are game land stuff. Generally fixed mg placement and trenches are death traps. The trenches have always killed me as they are not proper prepared defenses but more like old school ww1 comunication trenches. No firing positions and you stick your head out your head is highlighted agasint the back ground.

I think it is all that evil "game balance" stuff at work. OR tripwire has never actually read any Army's manuals of how to make a fighting position. But it is a slippery slop. How do you make a game accessable to main stream COD/BF guys while attempting something a little more real? There forumla is generally fun and better IMO than the bigger guys. BUT do not fool yourself into thinking realistic.

Legit field of fire defensive positions with interlocking fire and all that may be to much for COD Joe to handle. My thinking is that so many do not work together anyways that an attacking team could fine weak points to exploit as so many go off and run around with their heads cut off. But certainly no clearing out a bunker sort of thing here.
Showing 1-15 of 17 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: May 20, 2013 @ 4:00pm
Posts: 17