Weapon Categories in Unturned II [Long Post]

Yeah, I’m down with this post
Nothing game changing, just a spice of realism into the mix
Great job making this post readable and organized

1 Like

The AKM is a Soviet-era assault rifle chambered in the 7.62x39mm cartridge, known for being reliable in environments all over the world, ranging from the desert sands of the Middle East to the freezing tundra of the Arctic. It is the basis by which all modern assault rifles are judged.

Rarity is in the Item Card, right above the description, and Tier doesn’t really matter.

What about making the description even smaller?

“Rugged, reliable and used world wide. Uses Ranger 7.62x39.”


Alright. Listen here you illiterate pig, as well as you, @tehswordninja. I’ve read a lot of item descriptions, and what pisses me off most is how they’re too simplistic or they just have filler material in it. Clearly you cannot appreciate literature because an item description is not only supposed to provide background on the object, but it’s also supposed to present a sense of differentiation. I don’t want a bunch of weapons whose descriptions are just copy and pastes of each other but with different calibers, I also want to know why I should choose one rifle over another; without having to look it up? For example, a military combat knife:

Rare Melee
A multipurpose weapon issued to soldiers for both utility and combat purposes.

That’s the simple one. Sounds basic, and doesn’t convey nearly as much meaning and…how should I put this…awe?..as the second one I wrote:

Rare Melee
A multipurpose knife first adopted by the United States Marine Corps as the 1219C2. Equally useful for opening cans and slitting throats alike.

Decide it yourself, which one conveys more meaning and respect for the weapon? A small background on its history and use can easily bring it to life.

Hey, no need for the insults comrade, I’m not a low level Gopnik.

IMO the first one still fits better, it gives the knife a small description about what it was used for without giving me a long history of the weapon. Keep in mind, Nelson will still be using names like “Eaglefire,” so giving them the actual name in the description seems a bit, strange, and also lots of the gun names are copyrighted and cannot be used without permission.


Rest in pieces hopes and dreams.


1 Like

It’s called generating likes for a unique badge that nobody else has.

1 Like

RedComm has earned “Out of my will to get this badge”


Already resolved with a combination of automatic (mostly informational) and manual (mostly fluff) description entries, alongside any potentially visible Ability Stats shown below.

Your descriptions look like they’re literally just fluff, fam’. :I Fluff isn’t bad, it’s just not much of an arguing point either.


That’s like saying the PKS is a heavy machine gun just because it has a tripod and is used in fixed positions. It’s still a PK and it’s still a GPMG, any differences between them should be handled through the attachment system, or are impractical to reflect in Unturned.

You could also classify it with riot guns, flare pistols, and grenade launchers, given the large special purpose projectiles it fires, which is probably what the Russians were thinking when they gave its designation.

If we’re going to have so many classifications of machine guns any way, why not separate Section (or Squad if you speak Yankee) Automatic Weapons, (which fire intermediate cartridges,) and Light Machine Guns (which fire full power rifle cartridges.)

So would this carbine category include bolt-action, lever-action, semi-auto, select-fire, pump-action, and break-action carbines? That doesn’t seem particularly helpful, since the attachment system would allow so many weapons to be configured as rifle, carbine, or even pistol length weapons.

Not really a huge difference between these two.

1 Like

Just a question: is there any way this matters outside of flavor text? Does this impact gameplay at all? Nelson already said he was going to keep made up names, so you can assume that its not going to be 100% accurate so why fight over types of weapons, where the categorization doesn’t change the game? You dont need a history lesson on the middle east, especially when the gun is called a eaglefire. Also how did that post take 2 hours? That just confuses me. Anyways nitpicking weapon types and classes is just really unnecessary.

1 Like

The weapon classifications reflected how weapons were balanced in 3.X. for example, the Yuri, despite being based on a submachine gun, was called a carbine, and had stats more comparable to other “carbines” than to “submachine guns”

1 Like

The second one mostly gave irrelevant information. If you truly

The best solution I see would be to have more in-game differences to describe, not to write respectful ballads about the technical histories of each reskin of an item.

1 Like

Clearly you don’t understand what the difference is between the four types of machine guns (excluding submachine guns). Light machine guns are usually meant to support squad-sized units, and almost always have a provision for a bipod. Medium machine guns are either in a fixed poisition or in a tripod or a carriage due to its additional weight, and all medium machine guns are chambered in full-sized rifle cartridges. General-purpose machine guns can fill the role of both light and medium; they usually have both a bipod and can be mounted on a tripod. Finally, heavy machine guns are chambered in what I call “oversized rifle cartridges” like .50 BMG and 12.7x108mm.
Basically, light machine guns and medium machine guns are differenciated in the type of mount they have, general-purpose machine guns can do both, and heavies are based on caliber. It’s very confusing, I know.

Look, if it’s a light machine gun, then it’s a light machine gun. If it’s an assault rifle with an extended magazine and a bipod, it’s still an assault rifle.

They called it a cabine because it had a rifled barrel.

If you want, sure. I was just too lazy to type of every single possible category.

The Barrett can penetrate trucks. The PTRD can penetrate tanks.

The Barrett and PTRD could both damage soft skinned vehicles, lightly armored vehicles, and antique tanks.

Heavy machine gun originally referred to machine guns with a fixed mount and a design that heavily emphasized sustained fire over portability and were chambered for service rifle cartridges. This definition is not the most modern, and weapons of this type could sensibly be reclassified as medium machine guns (being chambered for service rifle cartridges) or heavy machine guns (being difficult to transport and impractical for use without a mount.)
Medium machine guns are chambered in service rifle cartridges, and sacrifice some of the sustained fire capability of the earlier heavy machine guns for relative mobility.
Light machine guns further sacrifice their sustained fire capability to be manportable.
Automatic rifles are of dubious utility into sustained fire roles, but are portable enough to be used while on the move. (There have only ever been a few automatic rifle designs, so it may make sense to group them with battle rifles, but it doesn’t make as much sense to classify a variant of the BAR as a light machine gun, simply because it has a bipod (which in the Unturned attachment system, would be quite effortlessly removed.)
General purpose machine guns were designed as more or less light machine guns, which have the ability to be mounted for use in or against aircraft (though only effective against low, slow, and soft aircraft,) or to be used in place of medium machine guns (but lacking in the stopping power and sustainability of either type of heavy machine gun.) General purpose machine guns have largely taken the place of both light machine guns and medium machine guns, but would generally have more in common with light machine guns, simply with the ability to be used in a mounted role.
Section automatic weapons, squad automatic weapons, light support weapons, whatever-the-fuck-you-wanna-callems were designed to be more interchangeable with the assault rifles that have become the primary small arms of most militaries, some are only share the same intermediate cartridge as assault rifles, some have interchangeable magazines with assault rifles, and a few are actually just assault rifles with attachments and components that aid in sustained fire roles. Because they are lighter than GPMGs and the remaining LMGs pressed into service as GPMGs, and are issued similarly to how light machine guns were issued, these weapons are sometimes called light machine guns, despite GPMGs being technically more similar to the original LMGs. Those that are just variants of assault rifles should be considered assault rifles, while those that are weapons designed specifically for this role (like the FN Minimi, RPD, and RPK families) should be classified as a separate group from the Light machine guns (which are far more similar to GPMGs) and assault rifles (which despite being able to be modified to fill this role, are generally quite different.)

I suppose one of the main points I’ve been trying to make is that weapons that can be modified to fill a certain role shouldn’t necessarily be put in the same category as weapons designed to fill that role. (Carbines, while filling a specific role for an army, don’t have any meaningful distinctions from their full length counterparts that are inherent to the weapon rather than just an attachment or component. A BAR, despite being pressed into the LMG role by the U.S. government, does not have any imherent characteristics that make it an LMG. An SAW, despite filling the same tactical role as an LMG, has its own distinct inherent technical qualities which distinguish it from an LMG. An antimateriel rifle, while not able to fill the antitank role that antitank rifles once filled, (because modern tanks are much more easily dealt with by explosives than by rifles,) is still technically very similar (in size, weight, cartridge, and armor penetration.)

P.S. when looking for information about firearms, you might want to look somewhere further right than Google, or atleast scroll further down than the first result.

1 Like

All in all, the BAR is a light machine gun that’s a battle rifle in disguise. I think that’s what you were trying to say.

I’m not gonna having a pissing contest here over the classification of weapons, this is how I classify firearms, and it is how I will continue classifying them.

And yes, you can say antitank rifles are also antimaterial rifles, but I like “antitank” better.

I’ll say this again, heavy machine guns are called so because of their caliber, medium machine guns are in sustained fire and usually are in full-sized rifle calibers, lights are meant to support squads of infantry, and generals fit the description for both light and medium.

Well, this topic blew up like a misfired round. ಠ_ಠ


Okay, first, you are both partly wrong on this matter. They are both considered AMR’s, or Antimateriel Rifles, as that is their purpose in combat. “Anti-tank rifle” isn’t a proper category any more, but rather a description of what said rifle was designed to do at the time of its creation. Both of them fire heavy calibers which are also used in heavy machine guns (.50 BMG and 14.5×114mm rounds respectively).
And yes, shot for shot, a Barret .50 cal rifle and a Browning Machine Gun both would do the same damage. Same goes for the PTRD-1941 and a KPV Heavy Machine Gun.
Also keep in mind that different types of ammunition performs differently, so when you compare weapons, you should compare similarly functioning ammunition for that weapon as well.


I don’t consider myself illiterate. I consider myself realistic. And knowing Nelson is going to be using names like “Eaglefire”, it makes no logical sense to have a fairly lengthy description describing where the weapon has seen service.

Give it up, man.