That’s practical use dude
‘Look has no impact on performance’ no wayyy!!
Its my personal opinion dont speak for the sake of speaking.
You have the point, and especially point1 make such MGs cant perform properly in game.
I know all these disadvantages you mentioned well, so it dont pains me to lauch such an unreasonable proposal, after all Darkflow will never consider about it.
But its still cool and fun to see a 250round MG in this game. So I speak out the idea just for fun.
1 Like
I 100% agree with you there. I really like using the M1919 machinegun myself.
If they fix mounting alone that would be a huge buff to MGs!
I was so disappointed when I dropped onto a roof with the Allied Normandy paratroopers which have 100 round Vickers machineguns and I realised that if I could fine somewhere to mount them that they cannot aim downward at all!
IMO they should slightly tone down dispersion for MGs atm, it’s too much. You literally spray and pray your shots land sometimes even when directly aiming at the target.
1 Like
For now I think we should get 100 round MG34 and MG42.
It most definitely SHOULD NOT be a one off event weapon or Premium or event squad.
Either we should be able to choose between mag and belt in the main menu like bayonets, or add it as a regular variant
3 Likes
Highly doubt thats anykind of problem
ppsh - beretta 20mag
stg44 - as44
Well, consider this: the MG 45 has a higher rate of fire than the 15, yet it’s considered a better weapon, in part due to the lower dispersion. So it comes down to how you use the German machine guns: short bursts, like it was designed to do, or suppressive fire, which they can’t do if they’re not mounted.
It is not. It is a stat.
If you just don’t like the MG 15, that’s fine. No one says you have to like it. But it’s weird to try and paint it as a bad weapon.
Dude is has worse dispersion, it has unique spread mechanism that no other MG has, it has more RoF for the same ammo count the MG34 Patrone has, you didn’t read the guy above you comment right?
Objectively a worse weapon compared to the previous one
1 Like
Cool. Having used pretty much every German machine gun from the 13 to the 45, I don’t find it to be a bad weapon, and I don’t care about obscure stats.
Sir your feeling is not a valid argument cuz I also have those weapons, the stats don’t lie, and your feeling holds no value
1 Like
Oh okay 
… Because it has 3/5s the reload time, half the vertical recoil and 2/3s the horizontal recoil?
It also doesn’t have a bloom on fire mechanic.
The stats don’t lie.
Preference has no place in a balance argument.
4 Likes
Well if you based purely on stats, then it has positives and negatives to the MG 42. The 42 is definitely a more user friendly weapon, I’m probably only successful with the 15 because I’m so familiar with the 42.
The original comment I responded to was that the MG 15 was bad because it was ugly, which although true imo, looks also has no place in a balance argument.
I nvr said its bad cos its ugly, i said its ugly
Talking out ur bumcheeks rn
This is what I’m referring to. This implies that the 15 is bad.
Totally fine if you didn’t mean to make that implication, but you did.
yup
Not bad because it is ugly, i used ugly to describe how i dont like its appearance, most people already know it is inadequate
I wanted to write this as a stand alone post but it doesn’t make sense. So here we go.
Overall german MGs were superior to most allied counterparts due to combination of several things. For example:
- great mobility
- high rof that made it easier to suppress the enemy
- sustained fire
- cost
- tactics that made good use of them
Now, which of those points is included in the game? Basically none. That’s why imo german MGs aren’t and won’t be better than their counterparts.
At least in the LMG role. I don’t consider “heavy AR” as their intended use.
this is where tactics come in play
if youre worried about stationary positions then that won’t help