I think the current state of MGs in enlisted is pretty messed up and is heavily pherhaps a bit too much biased towards the germans right now(and the fact that the devs think the BAR EVEN COMES CLOSE is Laughable at best, same with the MG34 vs the other allied guns is).
how do we fix this? Well the allies did have a few belt fed MGs in WW2 most notable being the M1919 LMG the stockless version and the version with pistol grip could be effective and still be used standing, sitting, ETC, if I recall correctly some soldiers would put some kind of cloth wrap/wrapping on the forend so that they could hold it. but they also made versions of the M1919 with wooden stocks.
Another interesting(but perhaps lesser known LMG) is the Vickers MK6, but its basically a vickers Machine gun thats been modified with a pistol grip, a buttpad and a bipod. I know it was in Day of infamy and it also had seen combat although truth be told not sure how much.
Another gun could be the Lewis gun and the Vickers VGO guns.
Another reason being the Horrible sight pictures on the Vickers Berthier in enlisted. (one of the reasons I hate using it even though its a proto bren)
Another reason is bipods and how they work, their more of a chore/hastle to deploy and despite the fire rate of the vickers guns being Slow, their recoil is insane, even when trying to tap fire/single fire. Even going prone doesn’t help. I honestly found that their more effective if you spray and pray hip fireing in their general direction. Meanwhile the MG34 and MG42 have great sight pictures/better than current allied LMGs.
Another reason is that most german MGs have stupidly high fire rates compared to the average fire rates of the allied LMGs and the magazine count!
For the Soviets id reccomend adding the Maxim Tokorev LMG and the RPD, although the current lineup of Soviet LMGs isn’t BAD. its better than what the other allied nations have currently.
Its not that the Vickers berthier or bren gun are BAD guns. its just that in comparison they have poor sight pictures(for the bren gun and Berthier) they have fire rates and mag counts that lag behind their german counterparts and they are harder to use. Compared that to the few times Ive picked up an MG34 or MG42 and it was like a night and day difference. the germans can still have good machine guns. but I don’t really think that the allies have anything compareable at the moment.
Another thing this is more of a minor thing however. I want the Devs to add the bren gun carrier.(I just think it would be cool is all)
The bar is incredibly effective actually, these two weapons have different jobs. Look at the bigger picture also - the game’s balance should not be examined on a ‘this class of weapons vs same class of weapons’ basis since as a combined arms shooter some factions will (and should) have different strengths and weaknesses.
It tends to be the case that US has better vehicles (bar the panther which has a pretty lackluster counter in the form of the m10, but the p47, a20 and piat work just fine) and axis tend to have infantry weapons that are easier to use effectively (fg42, mp43) however none of these weapons are inferior to their top tier allied counterparts. Allied weapons like the bar, m1 thompson and m2 carbine take more skill to use as well.
sooner or later. hopefully. something about the gun found in the game files. and the raider squad in Tunisia already using M1919 in their bike.
Not just Vickers Berthier or bren, but most if not all top feed magazine LMG (to certain extend some SMG too).
and still slower than the real life counterpart.
sooner or later. they did exist in the picture of logistic.
While allies MG have lower rate of fire, they’re far from being inferior to the German ones. at least the BAR is easier to control in my experience if you know how to use them.
Im more concerned about the combonation of the mag cap and the fire rate vs allied LMGs. so I don’t really think that they are compareable truth be told. but thats just why I think the allies need a few high cap options, the Vickers MK6(although a bit rare) the Vickers NGO and the Lewis gun with 97 round pan mag.
Alot can be said about the weakness of the the allied MGs but the BAR 1918A2 is not one of them. Put it in slow fire mode and its incredibly stable even at long range. Its really the only highlight of the allied MGs atleast for now. Id expect the 1919A6 and possibly the Vickers before level 40
When it comes to tanks however I don’t think germany should get the tiger 1 until they have the soviets get the IS series and the brits get the churchill and the US gets the Sherman jumbo with long barrel 75mm. for america in future battles if they add the tiger 2 than brits should get the centurion MBT(was being sent towards the front lines in 1945) and the americans should get the pershing.
the reason being is. if the germans get heavy tanks/heavy breakthrough tanks like the tiger 1 and tiger 2 they shoulden’t be compared to the regular ass sherman medium tanks(even the long 75mm cannons) or the soviet t34. but rather to the allied counterparts/heavy tonks.
When it comes to LMGs im more concerned about mag count, therefore while allies to make them different have slower rate of fire LMGs(which is ok) the MG42 and 34 feel a lot better in terms of almost everything. So the allies should have at least one LMG with compareable mag count. I never said make everything 100% balanced or symetrical. I just think that there should be a sort of “answer” to each weapon that the germans have. Which the devs seem to have done pretty good so far reguarding things. but if germany say gets the STG44 the m2 carbine is what the americans have, however it doesn’t seem like there are any british/soviet counters to the STG or its earlier version the MKB42
Im not saying the BAR is bad. Im just saying that compared to the current selections for the germans, it comes out lacking. With only a 20 round magazine, sure its more mobile but it doesn’t have 50-100 shots per magazine nor does it have that hauling ass fire rate and im not sure if allied LMGS get any magazine reserve increases to balance this out.
i somewhat agree on the brits. but the soviets however… idk man. the ppd/ppsh, while not being a direct counter, is better than the mkb in short range, while the mkb excels in mid range.
I dont really see a problem big enough to call the situation “messed up”. The BAR is actually quite controlably when fired without a Bipod… very much contrary to it’s real life performance. So there already has some unhistorical buffing taken place.
What’s messed up is the mechanic to use bipods/rest guns on something which need serious reworking. Much older games like Red Orchestra did this much better. Before that happened though guns like the M1919 are out of the question to me.
Since tank engagement ranges in Enlisted are usually super short a T-34 85 might possibly suffice against an Tiger. While an IS 2 would possibly be a nice sight to behold but the reload time would drive people crazy so no one would pick it.
From an allied perspective the devs are already bending reality by implementing the Jumbo into the Normandy Campaign - where it never historically was. While presenting a logical Tiger Counter the Pershing is even more out of the question for this reason. Perhaps a Battle of the Bulge campaign could see a long barrel Jumbo or a general Western Campaign the Pershing.
The problem is that most of Germanys late game guns are similar to the BAR but are more versatile and can be put on more soldiers in a unit.
For example all variants of the FG42 heck even the recently added MP43 does more damage than the M2 carbine while being more accurate and I even believe it has a similar fire rate.
You can now have squads that use nothing but FG42 MG42 and MP43 and the allies have nothing that can compete…
