Why do HA's need SMG access?

To me that sounds like a lot of rock/paper/scissors and hard counters, and that would greatly reduce the infantry threat to vehicles, exacerbating the infantry-farm issue.

And I'm not sold on the idea that the HA is the best anti-personnel class in the game. LMGs have very high damage output per magazine, but their overall DPS is lower than that of carbines and ARs.

The vehicular bias is strong with this one.

Why give Heavy Assault a pointless nerf against vehicles, and a semi-nerf against infantry. If Heavy Assault gets Carbines or Assault Rifles, every good player will laugh their **** off as they drown in the tears of baddies.


Besides if your worried about HA as a tank, your doing something wrong. Im more worried about c4 faries.

It would reduce the threat to vehicles... just as limiting vehicles to AP or HE shells reduces the threat to infantry. Although you are correct, I think that is a fair outcome to promote more complex and strategic gameplay and is completely fair in the context that vehicles are already balanced as such.

As for whether the HA is the best anti-infantry class there is... I think most people would claim that they are (hence the primary "combat" class). In terms of KPH LMGs certainly outclass assault rifles and carbines. The only infantry small arm that comes even close to KPH effectiveness are shotguns, which are much more situational than LMGs.

Why give tanks a HE/AP split and thus a nerf?

Because it promotes interesting tactical gameplay.

Would I accuse you of infantry bias if you were in support of splitting HE and AP tank cannons up? Not really. Because even as a tanker I can appreciate that there isn't "one loadout to rule them all". It makes life more interesting.

The same would be true of an infantry class. It's absolutely horrible game design to have one class that is effective against all targets. It's dull and uninspired.

That's why HAs should have to choose whether they would want to specialize in AI or AV duties... just as how a tanker must make the same decision.

You just want armor dominant. We all know this of you by now.

Infantry still get chewed up and spit out by the dozens by good vehicle operators.

If it wasn't for ambush packs of HA's or dirty surprise C4 attacks, many tankers would never even die.

Oh that's not true (generally). Do I think that tanks should be more durable and lethal than they are now? Yes. Do I think that tanks ought to be able to defeat a rifleman one-on-one? Sure.

But at the same time do I make suggestions that tanks should randomly catch on fire at 50% health and start burning to death from the inside? I do too. And most people would hardly see that as a suggestion that would buff tanks.

I don't make suggestions simply to make tanks more powerful. I make suggestions to make the game more interesting. Sometimes that means suggesting that 150mm tank shells are more lethal than hand grenades. Sometimes that means suggesting that tanks are much easier to disable, disarm, or blind. It goes both ways, depending on what I feel adds more depth to the game.

Sure what we end up with might be a game that isn't focused on infantry combat, but since... prior to WWI that's what warfare is supposed to be like anyhow. The story of a man and his rifle (or LMG/rocketlauncher/energy shield as in the case of PS2) winning the war is an outdated and cliche myth that deserves to be put in the dustbin of history.

Constructive criticism?

How about the fact that HA is only class intended to be in those CQB fights you keep talking about while the other classes are intended for support/indirect combat.

This is a heavy QQ thread anyway. I see no need to further reply to it.

PS: Who the hell uses HE rounds nowdays? I am pretty sure Ap rounds get more infantry kills in the statistic

Because we're just eating popcorn while you grasp at straws in your stealth ha nerf thread where it seems you're trying to stir up a nerf brigade. The reasonable people have spoken and you've tried to rehash your point over and over again.

We understand you, we just dont agree as shown. We will not agree not matter how you chop and change the same rubbish.

By the way I have no issue with you whatsoever. I am not attacking you, its OK.

Now please, do continue.

Ah you're going all out now. You've gained confidence to just go all out and not care one bit about anything you said about the thread not being about nerfs.

10/10.

wait what?? Why in the world would THAT be a good design?!??

Random ANYTHING is generally bad. Randomly CATCHING FIRE is downright insane.

I agree, and Colonel, pls don't bring your arma business here.