They're both automatic weapons with weird profiles and are both very strong. I don't see why they are not comparable in any way in that sense. There's only one assault rifle in the game and only one SMG that performs like the thompson does so they're a lot closer to each other than they are to any other weapon really.
The Thompson is an anomaly in SMG profiles created to solve a specific problem, to provide an upgrade worth taking over elite carbines. It should not become available to units that do not have that issue.
And not they are not that close, ST44 has a profile that is closer to SVT with a almost linear DPS drop off. Their main difference is the angle of that Drop off.
Bren working like a BAR would be interesting. It'd have to come with a removal of the out of cover penalties to reload, CD, and RA if it's going to be useable at all on sections though.
The suggestion is that T2 hammer unlock provides bren with no cover mechanism and 5 entities and anvil unlock provides vikcers-k with the mechanism and 4 men IS.
I guess if stens were massively improved and given to sections with some sort of upgrade that'd be functionally the same. But at that point why is the thompson so "problematic"? IMO it'd just be easier to give them a couple thompsons like the lend lease doctrine upgrade (which, as far as I can tell, isn't overly "problematic") and call it a day instead of making yet another weapon profile for a gun that already has 3.
Giving a stock SMG to the mainline infatry should be avoided since it will completely redesign the faction and it will allow to perform very good in both CQC and Open maps.
Thompson is a weapon that creates problems with relative positioning since it allow squad to fight effectively from close range even up to MID. That might be
borderline ok for squads like PG with their limitations but it is problematic with stock mainline infatry.
with a mod that lets you pick commander abilities
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
