ADD THE M1903 SPRINGFIELD

[desert star]

I don't see why not tbh🤔

[wet vector]

#1261554445066567721 message

@desert star We already have 2 rifles for rifleman. We don’t need to add in a barely used weapon that doesn’t make sense

[hollow gull]

It is already in the game

[desert star]

An additional rifle to the rifleman class

[chilly hatch]

The m1903 saw a bit of service on that front but it was mostly for a marksman or grenadier role (M1903 Springfields much easier and effective grenade launchers than the M1 garand but still it was phased out by the middle of the war)

[limber jungle]

Why would you even want the 1903 when the Garand is a option? In order for it to be historically accurate the 1903 would need it to be like a level 9 unlock to emphasize how rare it was. No one wants to grind for a worse weapon. Maybe add it with rifle grenades, other than that no. Even then all the U.S. maps take place in 1944 and 1945 when the 1903 rifle grenadier was mostly replaced by Garands with rifle grenades.

[raw lotus]

Squad 44 has the springfield as an option for rifleman. Never saw someone using it though...

[wet vector]

Oh gee I wonder why

[unborn wave]

It would make sense on the 2nd rifleman loadout for the usa, which currently holds the m1 carbine.

Also why do people make such a big fuss over such a small change?
The shotgun is also not that usefull. Yet it exsits in the game.

[hollow gull]

This is an argument against the Shotgun, not an argument for the M1903...

[unborn wave]

It is a relation between 2 weapons, one of which has been added purely for stylistic reason.
The m1 carbine is inferior to the garand in almost every way, yet the 2nd rifleman loadout features this weapon.
I dont see why it shouldnt be added reagrdless, as it sacrfices firepower for 4 grenades.

And riflegrenades for the rifleman??
Given that we are talking about instant detonation grenades which can be shot father than thrown?
Not a good idea unless they arent instant detonated and/or only available to a limited class.
(This should have been the assault grenadier imo)

[limber jungle]

All of the U.S. maps take place in 1944 and 1945. By that time a rifle grenade attachment was issued for Garands and mostly replaced the 1903s in that role. It doesn't make much sense to add the 1903 with rifle grenades unless we have 1942 or 1943 maps for the U.S.

[wet vector]

The Springfield wasn’t used in the ETO pretty much at all while the Garand and Carbine were the main rifle and carbine of the U.S. and saw use every day of every minute of the conflict.

The only reason a M1903 should be added is with a dedicated rifle grenider class

[hollow gull]

I can only agree with @wet vector and @limber jungle , and regarding the Shotgun: Those and the FG42 were added to spice things up, of course they were rare and other weapons are better. But atleast the FG42 was used in Normandy and other maps we have ingame, unlike the Trench Gun which is outplaced in an Europe 1944/45 map. @unborn wave I agree generally with the principle "Gameplay over Realism". But I think not even gameplaywise it would make much sense. Also why do you argue at other post with the argumet of historical accuracy, yet here you argue with gameplay? It's a bit inconsistent

[unborn wave]

You guys argue from a historcal standpoint. I try to argue from a gameplay perpective. I believe that this would also spice things a bit up. I guess that makes little sense then.

[raw lotus]

I dont get how a worse rifle would spice things up. Rifle grenades would be sick though

[limber jungle]

I actually go back on what I said and agree with you. Rifle grenades could be a good addition to this game but putting them on an already strong weapon like a Garand might be a bad idea balance wise. They should pair rifle grenades with the 1903 just for the sake of balance. you could also see at as a much needed buff to the bolt actions.

[wet vector]

Actually you can easily balance a Garand with a rifle grenade because you have to unload all your rifle rounds, then load individual blanks when you want to fire a rifle grenade.

Just make a rifle grenader class. You have more then enough options plus being able to switch between smokes, AT, and Frags. Having it be a rifleman unlock is overkill anyways and could lead to way to much firepower on the fields

@unborn wave Rifle grenade launchers were literally designed with the idea of having a more portable AT weapon. Not including them is deriving them of their purpose

[unborn wave]

I stray away from AT grenades.
We have more than enough ingame to deal with amour. Smokes would be very good to "blind" enemy positions.
Im just not sure how rifle grenades should be balanced.
Standard grenades are a 1 hit kill and dismember everyone in a certain radius. Should that be changed or should the new "grendier" class be limited per team?