I play at BR5 and I need my bots to defend themselves at that level and As a solo player
They have cas, which also fits just fine in your not red vs blue game.
sure
The same advantages & disadvantages where you disregarded the fact it can be wielded by paras ?
Its almost like if you were cherry picking the disadvantages that fits your narrative.
But obviously you wouldnt do that.
Well actually both gold order lahti & FN are closer in recoil stats to vickers, considering vickers is as well event gun.
But lets put that aside since it wouldnt fit your biased narrative.
Oh no look at america suffering.
I can clearly see the insane disadvantage of 100 belt right there.
2 Likes
cause asymmetrical balance works and all players in this game can select tanks and cas at any time in the battle.
lets balance all smg by how pilots use them, cause guns should be balanced by class that can use them.
also i didnt disregard paras. whole cqc argument started from there which you derailed into cqc sherman.
and it is pointless to balance guns based on class of soldiers. guns are balanced by other comparable guns, not by any magic ability some soldier class has.
vickers has VR:28 HR:17 D:0.36
dt-29 has VR:30 HR:17 D:0.37
lahti has VR:39 HR:16 D:0.35
FN has VR:29 HR:17 D:0.27
so dt-29 is closest thing to recoil/dispersion stats to vickers.
so you are showing 10m dispersion? is this supposed to be cqc argument? what about fact that mg42 has 80% faster ROF than m1919a6? are you going to ignore that stat too?
1 Like
Quite irrelevant, since this red / bull argument was yours to start with.
Sure
Just like above, yes you did.
Because your strawman CQC argument is quite far fetched, especiatly for a weapons that arent really anything special in CQC nor intended to CQC to start with.
True, lets give paras cas planes to get in theyr objective. Because what can or what they cant use is irrelevant right ?
Can germans use the DT ?
it was actually 30 or 50m.
theres 100m then. Oh the suffering of 100 belt.
Not exactly sure what differency does it make in 1v1 comparison which you insist ?
After all who ever fires first wins, m1919 browning has faster bullet so theres that.
Or are you now speaking of which one is more effective to mown down lets say group of 5 ?
Doesnt really sound like it would fit your 1 on 1 narrative, are you trying to cherry pick here again ?
3 Likes
then 80% ROF buff on m1919a6 when germans get 100 round belt?
i am talking about performance of gun 1v1. not 1on1 duel between 2 lmg that you are forcing.
1 Like
Doesnt sound very historical which was also one of your arguments.
I suppose your standards can be bend when ever it fits your needs ?
Quite sure you earlier disregarded my argument of Mg42 being rather bad in CQC due to fact what it faces in CQC.
And AGAIN insisted to keep comparison as 1 on 1 for weapons.
To be fair, you based your entire argument on unicorn situation of Mg42 vs Vickers in CQC.
So are we now again bending standards so they fit your narrative?
2 Likes
Yeah, should have listened mark twain.
3 Likes
like i said it is pointless to argue with you, so i will just stop. we are going in circles again and again and you are just making dishonest arguments.
btw from allies main.
1 Like
Overall Mg42 is bad CQC
“Ik lol, but lets keep this as 1 on 1 comparison”
100 belt for germuts to make mg42 relevant at mid range
“No history say germut 100 belt is no no but lets increase rof 80% for m1919”
Like seriously, you have probably bent every each one of your arguments when ever it fits your narrative.
2 Likes
and that is relevant how? every other MG is even worse at cqc than mg42 and that is only relevant metric for balancing MG. and by that i dont mean only cqc combat, but other comparable MG.
well you wanted balance and to ditch history. so i want increase rof 80% for m1919a6 in that case.
nope. you just made too many stupid arguments and i had to counter it with even stupider arguments. e.g. 80% rof for m1919a6.
This is not the place to fight if u want to continue take it to DM consider this your warning.
1 Like