Fedorov Avtomat

[The Great Dictator]

Ok, ok, ok... so very few were actually made before the collapse of the Russian Empire, and subsequent withdrawl of Russia from WW1. To be fair though, the MP18 (amongst many other weapons in the game) wouldn't be a particularly common sight either.

But cmon', when else do we have the chance to see what is arguably the first assault rifle, or at least the precursor to what we consider the assault rifle?

Historically speaking, the weapon would make sense more in the context of the Russian Civil War/Allied Intervention/Russian related period conflicts in which a more sizeable amount were produced and used, particularly in Karelia.

But honestly, as much as I would LOVE to see a game focused upon the conflicts hinged around the fall of the Russian Empire, I don't see that happening any time soon. So, now would be the chance to showcase a particularly fascinating, and under-represented firearm.

That, and getting the chance to run around with the world's first assault-rifle would be ♥♥♥♥♥in'.

[Bran Mak Morn]

Originally posted by The Great Dictator:

But cmon', when else do we have the chance to see what is arguably the first assault rifle, or at least the precursor to what we consider the assault rifle?

it is not

[Bishop]

I don't see it happening. I can only find mention of 16 being issues to infantry during the war and none of them survived their battle to supply a report on performance.

It's estimated only 200 were made between 1916 and 1920, and thye were given to the Navy, Airforce and Army.

So outside of it being added to a game mode like Attrition/RDM I really don't want to see it.

Worth noting the MP-18i saw between 5,000 and 10,000 produced and issued in 1918.

[Kermit the Frog]

Actually the Ribeyrolles is considered one of the first "assault rifles" ever created

[Sharpe's Sword𓅣𓃠]

Would be cool for attrition only. Kind of like T-Gewher where it is a fun weapon.

[FUS]

Originally posted by X-Queen Luna:

Actually the Ribeyrolles is considered one of the first "assault rifles" ever created

Fedorov's Avtomat is made in 1915 though

[El Zorro]

You can also count the Cei-Rigotti as an assault rifle, and that was probably used more than the Fedora.

[Bishop]

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

You can also count the Cei-Rigotti as an assault rifle, and that was probably used more than the Fedora.

No it wasn't. First it was an auto-matic rifle.

Second it never got past the prototype phase so saw no use what so ever compared to the Fedorov which did see at least 3,000 built over it's 9 year production.

[El Zorro]

Originally posted by Bishop:

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

You can also count the Cei-Rigotti as an assault rifle, and that was probably used more than the Fedora.

No it wasn't. First it was an auto-matic rifle.

Second it never got past the prototype phase so saw no use what so ever compared to the Fedorov which did see at least 3,000 built over it's 9 year production.

Actually first automatic rifle was in 1855 if you count that weird-ass thingy.

And Cei-Rigotti was sold or something like that at only 100 built. At least that's what I remember.

[Bishop]

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

Originally posted by Bishop:

No it wasn't. First it was an auto-matic rifle.

Second it never got past the prototype phase so saw no use what so ever compared to the Fedorov which did see at least 3,000 built over it's 9 year production.

Actually first automatic rifle was in 1855 if you count that weird-ass thingy.

And Cei-Rigotti was sold or something like that at only 100 built. At least that's what I remember.

I said first, as in first point not as in the first ever automatic rifle.

It's was a prototype, they made a few for trials but it was never adopted by any military.

[El Zorro]

Originally posted by Bishop:

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

Actually first automatic rifle was in 1855 if you count that weird-ass thingy.

And Cei-Rigotti was sold or something like that at only 100 built. At least that's what I remember.

I said first, as in first point not as in the first ever automatic rifle.

It's was a prototype, they made a few for trials but it was never adopted by any military.

It was not adopted, but it was a private purchase.

[El Zorro]

Also, there should be tons of guns for Attrition. I am rather disappointed in the previous game's Attrition mode, and it should definately have all kinds of new weapons. Maybe in an update, but idk.

What I envision for Attrition mode is a gamemode unconstrained by the historical stipulations the developers normally have to suffer from. I feel like a lot more effort should be put into it.

Also, I think neutral guns for both sides should be in the game as well. There is no reason why it should not happen. Before anyone says that it requires too much money, does it not require a ton of money to make Tannenberg in general? Did the Horrors of War update not take a ton of money? Can you not make a huge update for a gamemode OTHER THAN FRONTLINES?

[Bishop]

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

It was not adopted, but it was a private purchase.

No it wasn't as it never saw production outside of the trial versions so it couldn't be privately purchased by officers.

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

Also, there should be tons of guns for Attrition. I am rather disappointed in the previous game's Attrition mode, and it should definately have all kinds of new weapons. Maybe in an update, but idk.

What I envision for Attrition mode is a gamemode unconstrained by the historical stipulations the developers normally have to suffer from. I feel like a lot more effort should be put into it.

Also, I think neutral guns for both sides should be in the game as well. There is no reason why it should not happen. Before anyone says that it requires too much money, does it not require a ton of money to make Tannenberg in general? Did the Horrors of War update not take a ton of money? Can you not make a huge update for a gamemode OTHER THAN FRONTLINES?

Might not be restricted by historical reasons but they are restricted by buisness reasons as you've been told before. Guns are very expensive to add and making them for a single game mode that doesn't get many players isn't a good investment.

Tannenberg is going to be sold. So unless you want to pay $4.99 for each gun added to RDM/Attrition then that isn't a good comparison.

HoW was a large expansion that improved all game modes and added them such as Attrition and drew players in to the game which directly increased sales, as can be seen by the stats at release. Addition of none historical weapons isn't going to have that effect as adding new nations .

[El Zorro]

Originally posted by Bishop:

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

It was not adopted, but it was a private purchase.

No it wasn't as it never saw production outside of the trial versions so it couldn't be privately purchased by officers.

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

Also, there should be tons of guns for Attrition. I am rather disappointed in the previous game's Attrition mode, and it should definately have all kinds of new weapons. Maybe in an update, but idk.

What I envision for Attrition mode is a gamemode unconstrained by the historical stipulations the developers normally have to suffer from. I feel like a lot more effort should be put into it.

Also, I think neutral guns for both sides should be in the game as well. There is no reason why it should not happen. Before anyone says that it requires too much money, does it not require a ton of money to make Tannenberg in general? Did the Horrors of War update not take a ton of money? Can you not make a huge update for a gamemode OTHER THAN FRONTLINES?

Might not be restricted by historical reasons but they are restricted by buisness reasons as you've been told before. Guns are very expensive to add and making them for a single game mode that doesn't get many players isn't a good investment.

Tannenberg is going to be sold. So unless you want to pay $4.99 for each gun added to RDM/Attrition then that isn't a good comparison.

HoW was a large expansion that improved all game modes and added them such as Attrition and drew players in to the game which directly increased sales, as can be seen by the stats at release. Addition of none historical weapons isn't going to have that effect as adding new nations .

There are tons of guns restricted by history, like the Sjogren-Inertia, which attrition could be the only way for it to be added.

And I would be willing to pay money for my Ruby or an LMG.

[Bishop]

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

There are tons of guns restricted by history, like the Sjogren-Inertia, which attrition could be the only way for it to be added.

And I would be willing to pay money for my Ruby or an LMG.

Which is why it's restricted for buisness reasons. The cost of adding it isn't worth it for the Devs.

[El Zorro]

Originally posted by Bishop:

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

There are tons of guns restricted by history, like the Sjogren-Inertia, which attrition could be the only way for it to be added.

And I would be willing to pay money for my Ruby or an LMG.

Which is why it's restricted for buisness reasons. The cost of adding it isn't worth it for the Devs.

Originally posted by Bishop:

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

There are tons of guns restricted by history, like the Sjogren-Inertia, which attrition could be the only way for it to be added.

And I would be willing to pay money for my Ruby or an LMG.

Which is why it's restricted for buisness reasons. The cost of adding it isn't worth it for the Devs.

But dad, I need MAI ROOBY.