Forum

I was just going through the Foundry VTT and adding images to all weapons and ammo (took a while, since I've added tons of weapons).

But something struck me...
I was looking at the AKM.
it has the following stats: Rel: 5 Rof: 4 Dam: 2 Crit: 3 Blast: – Range: 5 Mag: 30 Armor: 0 Weight: 1 Price: 300
then I looked at the AK-74.
it has the following stats: Rel: 5 Rof: 5 Dam: 2 Crit: 3 Blast: – Range: 6 Mag: 30 Armor: 0 Weight: 1 Price: 400

The AK-74 has a higher rate of fire and range,while every other stat is exactly the same as the AKM.

Why would anyone ever pick the AKM, if given a choice?

In real life, Spetsnaz troops often picked the AKM over the AK-74 because it was considered to have better stopping power, making it worth the heavier weight and slightly worse range. In the game the AKM has zero advantages over the AK-74, which makes it practically useless.
I'm considering switching the damage and crit to make it more similar to a 7.62 nato rifle (not the same at all, I know, but for gameplay purposes), giving it 3 damage and 4 crit. That way it hits harder in general, but also requires more to make a crit. And it still has worse range than the AK-74 (and basically any Nato 7.62 rifle as well, giving a bit of a niche).

if given a choice

This right here. It's a second line and "other actor" weapon. It's the gun you have, so it's the best gun ever made.

Besides some deniability or commonality with proxies on operations, I can't imagine why Spetsnaz would actively choose the earlier rifle.

EDIT: All that said, that's why the AKM is 3/4 the cost of the AK-74. The RoF and Range hits reduce its value. If you want to change stats, you need to consider this.

if given a choice

This right here. It's a second line and "other actor" weapon. It's the gun you have, so it's the best gun ever made.

Besides some deniability or commonality with proxies on operations, I can't imagine why Spetsnaz would actively choose the earlier rifle.

And that's why I included that line. If your player *has a choice*, there's zero reasons to pick the AKM. And it's not just because it's "older". That's a very simplistic view of the world.

I mean, I did tell you why they actively chose the earlier rifle. In real life it does have advantages over the AK-74, but they're not really reflected in-game at all.

All I'm saying is that why does a rifle firing a 123gram bullet at 738m/s doing 2179 J of energy have the same damage and crit as a rifle firing a 53gram bullet at 880m/s doing 1328 J of energy? It makes very little sense.

EDIT: All that said, that's why the AKM is 3/4 the cost of the AK-74. The RoF and Range hits reduce its value. If you want to change stats, you need to consider this.

I don't use values. It's all about bartering and values are relatively useless in my opinion. (An AK might be worth a lot if you have no guns at all, but it's worth nothing if you're riding around in a jeep with 20 looted AK's in the back)

That's the point. The AKM is a less capable weapon and, given a choice, you shouldn't take it outside of specific, non-white room, mission requirements.

Also, going back to your questions about vehicle combat, increasing the damage of the AKM's M/43 ammunition greatly expands the weapon's anti-vehicular capability to most APCs. If that were true, no army in the world would have tacked to SCHV over their own take on other intermediate methodologies like the 7.92 Kurz and M/43 (ie, the .300 Whisper/Blackout.)

This is because the system simply lacks the granularity to differentiate various intermediate cartridges. Unlike older versions of the game, numbers are logarithmic rather than linear, as shown by pistols and fists dealing 1 damage compared to 10 and 11 for top-end AT weapon, while armor ranges from 0 for unarmored troops to 12 for top-end MBTs. Gone are a hundred plus, or even several hundred and up to a thousand, points of armor on an M1 and 20-some "hit points" for characters that allow for differentiation between M855 and M/43.

I mean, there's an easy way to tackle the lack of granularity if your main worry is that it will penetrate too much armour, just give it +1 in armour.

If your main argument against the AKM having any advantages over the AK-74 at all is *checks notes* "it's old and if you increase damage it can pen APC's", I'm not sure you're making much of an argument.

Anyway, I don't care, so I've decided to go with the simple solution of increasing damage to 3 and crit to 4, while keeping the ROF at 4 and range at 5, thus making the weapon have the advantage of doing more damage, but the disadvantage of less range, lower rate of fire (and since I track weapon weight differently, less ammo per weight unit). Should there ever be a problem with the borderline case of the 7.62x39 being able to penetrate something it shouldn't, I'll consider changing armour to +1 instead of 0.

But since 7.62x51 ball ammo can pen an M113 from the front and a Bradley from the side in the game, I'm not that worried about players feeling it's unrealistic to get a penetration with the AKM.

I'd give the players an AKM just to deflate them. And also motivate them to go out and use them, in order to upgrade their weapons by taking on a stronger force

I'd give the players an AKM just to deflate them. And also motivate them to go out and use them, in order to upgrade their weapons by taking on a stronger force

Not the point I'm making here.

I've already given some of my players old WW2 smg's, which is why they've now upgraded.

There's always a "worse" gun you can give someone. Hell, we have zip guns in the game.

The game don't have the granularity to make it worthwhile, even if in real life when you expect a short distance firefirght, it have advantages over the AK74.

Increasing damage and crit is a quick solution but it may bring other unforeseen problems, mainly the extra damage will need the extra armor so you are adding stuff that is not really needed as the game is not really that much better just because some particular weapon is more attractive now, also the damage increase is disproportionate, the AKM is not that powerful compared to the AK74, specially at longer ranges, something that is hard to simulate with the +1 damage/+1 crit.

One idea is to keep it DAM2, CRIT3 but modify rolls in the critical table, so the damage is the same but critical rolls are more lethal (more stopping power). This feels better considering that special forces are good shots and at close quarters will get extra damage due to good rolls, making them better with a weapon that modifies rolls in the critical damage tables.

When I first saw this topic, I was definitely in the "don't change it, damage 3 will be overpowered!" camp, but after thinking about it, I think it's fine, actually. The 7.62x39 is often compared to the .30-30, and is, when comparing muzzle energy, about as close .30-30 as 5.56. (7.62x39 sits at about 2100J, 30-30 at about 2500J and 5.56 at about 1700J). The .30-30 rifle also sits at damge 3, crit 4 and range 5, which is the range of an AKM. So in the granularity of the system, it's definitely valid.

On the other hand, if an AKM is damage 3 crit 4, battle rifles like the FAL start looking quite a lot less attractive. Sure the FAL still has quite a big range advantage, but only has 2/3 of the ammo (per reload as well) and weighs twice as much, meaning that for the weight of a loaded FAL with 20 rounds, you get an AKM with 30 loaded rounds and 4 reloads (so 150 total). The AK-74 still has advantages in range and ROF, and crits as easily, offsetting the damage.

Personally, I'd probably keep the AKM where it is (more for game balance than any other reason), but your thread has made me consider it. I think it comes down to personal preference, whether you want the AKM to be the unsung, old, reliable man-stopper or yesterday's technology, still valid but superseded by modern tech. Both opinions are firmly held by knowledgeable people today.

In the campaign I'm in right now, it mostly comes down to ammo availability. When we started out, one of the characters had an RPK with 6 75-round reloads, and we mostly ran into second line units with older weapons, so 7.62x39 was plentiful and 5.45 rare. Now we're dealing with a guards division (not all of one), and 7.62 is running low while we have a growing pile of captured AK-74s and 5.45.

So why would someone pick the AKM over the AK-74 or vice versa? Because they have the luxury of picking.

Also, any person with the least bit of refinement would pick an SKS.