Quote Originally Posted by Vuk View Post
I have not played NW, so I can only go off of what you said about it. That said, I long rifle with a bayonet on it is a far better infantry weapon than a sabre. A lance is also a far more lethal cavalry weapon. If you are stabbed through by a lance or bayonet in the torso or head, you would likely die from that one wound. That said, as a sabre is a slashing weapon, and good depth of cut cannot always be easily achieved (for instance, in the chest, of you do not work your way in between the ribs, you will likely only give a flesh wound that will not be lethal. (unless it gets infected) Also, Thick clothing, gear, etc. protects much better against a sabre wound than a stabbing wound from a lance of bayonet. While I do not agree that it should take four hits for someone to go down, I think two would be reasonable. I definitely would not rebalance the bayonets though, I would rebalance the sabres. The bayonets are not over-powered, the sabres are underpowered.
Your argument about realism would be valid if it wasn't for the fact that we're talking about a game with health bars, females as rank-and-file soldiers, mortally-wounded players being just as efficient as unwounded ones, players running all across the map and doing their own thing, players magically getting higher accuracy when standing near officers, engineers who build spiked barricades on stairs in farmhouses, a 10-minute time limit, and (depending on map settings) respawns.

I'd like to make one point clear: The game has a health bar. Your argument is invalid.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 






Actually, I wouldn't mind the bayonets so much if the sabers weren't less effective than a Nerf bat.