Hockler Posted April 12, 1999 Share Posted April 12, 1999 In Close Combat II, I've played many games and so far, the performance of the BAR seemed to be only equal to the Garands, but were more likely to jam. I even put the teams in high buildings and the BARs always scored lower kills than the Thompsons! Is the BAR really that bad?? How do you rate your BAR's compared to the ones in CC2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 13, 1999 Share Posted April 13, 1999 I can't comment on the BAR in CCII as I really didn't notice. But it wouldn't surprise me to hear that there were problems with the simulation of them. The BAR is not as good as one would think. It was VERY prone to jamming or other mechanical problems. It was also ammo hungry, but only had 20 rnd mags. Because of the mags, they ammo load was much bulkier than a Garand, and that limited the weapon's usefullness. As far as your CCII observations go, a Thompson at close range should do much better than the BAR. A 45cal bullet at 25m will kill you just as dead as a 30cal coming from the BAR. Loading and firing both the Garand and Thompson was quicker, eaiser, and more effective while on the move. Combine these two and you can see why the BAR is outclassed at short range. However, the Thompson can't hold a candle to the BAR beyond close up combat ranges. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts