Update: PR:WW2 Status Update June 2018

[NlaEid]

Extreme levels of HYPE!

We all know you're doing your best PR devs and we're right behind you!

[TheDankOverlord]

Out of curiosity, how many pistol clipazines will German ALT AT have?

[milosv123344]

Amazing job guys i can't wait!

[Walmarx]

I cannot overstate how elated I am to read this, even two months late! the Battlefield V beta has just ended, and as I expected, it really just made me crave PR. Now I really have something to look forward to! I am thrilled this is still in development, I'll bring every player I can with me once it is released.

[MertSahin]

Originally Posted by Walmarx

I cannot overstate how elated I am to read this, even two months late! the Battlefield V beta has just ended, and as I expected, it really just made me crave PR. Now I really have something to look forward to! I am thrilled this is still in development, I'll bring every player I can with me once it is released.

Meet you on the battlefield

[crokojot]

[Onslaught]

Cool, looking forward to it!

[Ragnarok1775]

In the interest of historical accuracy and less (read: era accurate) firepower:

How about pistols only for US and German medics?

Also, since American and German troops generally obeyed laws of war with respect to medics, what would it take to implement a penalty for killing a medic, somewhat like the civilian kit in insurgency (though I vaguely remember there being some kind of bug or problem with them)?

However if we ever end up with Eastern Front or Pacific Theater maps, USN Corpsmen carried carbines because the IJA did not respect non-combatant status of medics whatsoever, nor did the Red Army.

[[R-CON]​Frontliner]

Any kind of weapon would make it acceptable to shoot a medic. So "just" having pistols wouldn't change anything.

The problems with unarmed medics are predominantly gameplay related:
1. There is no real incentive to not shoot a medic if we were to copy the Insurgency behaviour. I remember playing Fallujah or Basrah Skirmish, and it doesn't matter if you were to shoot civis because you don't care about the respawn timer when you can deny the enemy squad from ever getting up. The only way to make players care about the ROE would be a ticket penalty unless knifed, but that could potentially be abused by forcing kills on medics. I think it's too much of a hassle and disrupts the gameplay by far more than it adds to it.
2. The 2nd reason for armed medics is that our kit system is kind of a nightmare when it comes to WW2 because of the customizeability it provides to squad configurations. I've made a very lengthy post about it a few years ago, and it's only been finalized in a - for me - satisfactory manner a couple of months ago.
But basically, if we were to strip medics of their firearms entirely, we would end up having far too many automatic weapons per squad again.

[Ragnarok1775]

If you mean legally, no, medics were legally allowed to carry weapons for defensive purposes only. It did not make them valid targets. I believe the unarmed medic convention article was passed in 1948 or 1949. Typically the US carried the M1911 and Germans the P08 or P38. I think this would be reasonable as it's not an offensive weapon unless you're crazy.

1) A significant respawn timer penalty plus ticket loss? No exception for knives. But then some people may not know/care. Is it possible for the game to distinguish between a gun/melee kill and a splash-damage kill? As a kind of workaround for accidents or medics being human shields. So I concede this may not be practical.

2) Great post, even if it took me several hours to read it. If the devs were to stick to realistic kit loadouts including pistol-only medics, we wouldn't have an automatic weapon-heavy squad. We would just be short one M1/K98k. I'm assuming there will still be limited kits. You're F-ed without a medic (which personally I believe should be a one per squad limit) and it's a pain to switch squads, wait a couple minutes, pull an AR kit (if it's even available), then switch back. The squad will still be dominated by rifles, and no one gains a machine gun.

Originally Posted by Frontliner

Any kind of weapon would make it acceptable to shoot a medic. So "just" having pistols wouldn't change anything.

The problems with unarmed medics are predominantly gameplay related:
1. There is no real incentive to not shoot a medic if we were to copy the Insurgency behaviour. I remember playing Fallujah or Basrah Skirmish, and it doesn't matter if you were to shoot civis because you don't care about the respawn timer when you can deny the enemy squad from ever getting up. The only way to make players care about the ROE would be a ticket penalty unless knifed, but that could potentially be abused by forcing kills on medics. I think it's too much of a hassle and disrupts the gameplay by far more than it adds to it.
2. The 2nd reason for armed medics is that our kit system is kind of a nightmare when it comes to WW2 because of the customizeability it provides to squad configurations. I've made a very lengthy post about it a few years ago, and it's only been finalized in a - for me - satisfactory manner a couple of months ago.
But basically, if we were to strip medics of their firearms entirely, we would end up having far too many automatic weapons per squad again.