actually had to try mg34 after your rant.
And to my surprise it actually was absolutely useless piece of shit like it has been for years.
2 Likes
- The BAR should be the same as the Stg44 as an assault infantry weapon. but not about that.
As far as I know, the MG34 or MG42 has such a dispersion that even with recoil control perks, you have to lean the weapon against something or shoot from a prone position.
I thought this topic would be about HMGs that crossfire on campaigns where tanks have paper armor completely stop the attacking side.
How many grams I have not yet met with the fact that the entire opposing side uses only machine gun teams.
I don’t see a problem with someone using three LMG teams. I can put four on Normandy.
After that, the universal machine guns were nerfed because in the closed beta they had the same damage as rifles because in the closed beta the damage was determined by the ammunition, not the cries of people detached from reality saying that there is no balance because this weapon is too strong.
There is no balance in war K98 and MG42 uses the same ammo, yet the MG42 does less damage.
4 Likes
If the BAR can fall into the STG category, the Breda should as well.
I don’t get the general attitude of this community, I honestly don’t. I made a suggestion under the suggestion flag and if you don’t agree I can respect that. What I can’t respect or acknowledge as anything other than shitposting is flippant dismissals or in this case something that’s plain wrong. Now, I don’t know you, your playstyle or what you’re used to, and that’s considered. But it’s pretty presumptuous and then some to say I don’t like this so it’s useless. I personally dislike Garands but that’s hardly a factor to judge them as useless.
I never claimed entire teams used entirely MG squads. I suggest they should have their own niche rather than overlapping with SMGs or ARs. Again, what do you think of splitting LMG gunners that require some sort of setup, couple of seconds to unpack and secure their bipod for example and having proper AR gunners that transition into semi-modern, late war, assault rifles? As it happened.
It would also give some meaning to different tiers of squads. Higher tier, more late war ones would have a higher concentration of ARs to eventually completely supplanting rifles rather than being mostly just a new squad to grind.
Entirely up to you what you use. It isnt exactly first time DF would have done some ninja tweaking with weapons so I was genuinely intrested was the LMG any better than what it has been last 2 years.
And obviously you know my answer already.
SO to keep it short, I dont think theres any reason to nerf the current LMG’s any further.
They literally are absolute carbage and as many others have pointed out that they havent exactly faced this full lmg massacre you described in past 2 years. Most likely for previously mentioned reasons.
Nothing is “useless” but considering from game point of view they are horribly obsolete compared to other tools available.
So in that sense I think its fair to say they are useless rather than make a list how many weapons are actually performing better than the Mg34 for example.
What do you not understand.
The Breda is a light machine gun.
And the MG42 and MG34 are universal machine guns.
BAR - Browning assault rifle
The “A” in BAR stands for “automatic” not “assault”.
3 Likes
Except we won’t get good MM. It’s gonna be exactly the same as long as fools decide they don’t wanna team stack.
Yes you are right. I was wrong, but the same wikipedia says it’s a shock-troop prow.
So despite the abuse, my name is not incorrect.
I can see where you’re coming from if you’ve experienced the current bolt rifle damage at 900rpms and 50x less dispersion. I’m shitting myself at the idea in both facing and using that to be perfectly honest. With that said, I’ve said again, and again; don’t nerf, don’t go into germany/us/mars suffers my dad can beat up your dad and soviet bias shenanigans but wouldn’t giving them a more specialized role be more appropriate then having them as ARs? For example, for start let’s say appropriating the mortar setup mechanics and giving them a significantly larger reserve ammo capacity. It would also differentiate them from HMGs as being more mobile and also from SMGs as being less breach and clear with hip-fire weapons.
Impossible.
Where does it say that?
Depends on what kind of good. Not as better AR.
I honestly dont think the lmg’s performs so well in cqc that it would be an issue of anykind.
Hey, if you’re the type of vet that knows what’s what, and what’s not, AND has the pick of all available gear, then sure. No hard feelings and no argument there. Only you can say what’s for you and so on, I’d be a complete ass to presume otherwise. And if I was used to say thompsons, fedorovs and MKBs I’d likely think the same, but where I’m at and where I see quite a few people are at, some if not all LMGs are basically your best if not in some cases only reliable breach and clear options. And let’s face it, capturing often cramped objectives is what wins games. Also funnily enough as quite a few people even in this thread mentioned most of them are not so reliable at either long range support or long range period. Their historical and practical role even today. So two points, and please, tell me what’s wrong with either.
A: It’s hard to argue that it’s way more effective to take an LMG type weapon that has between 400-900rpms and at least 20 rounds to assault a position than even most semis let alone a bolt. And it’s usually the only way for a player like me that has been playing for a couple of months to counter a player like you that has been playing for a couple of years. I don’t grow as a player, use better tactics or God forbid work with my team, I yell ye-haw or uraa and pray I get you with my hipfire. And God help some poor sap that just started playing and has his starter carbine expecting a somewhat realistic WW2 game.
B: LMG emplacement as such is something I almost never see around. I didn’t even know it existed for a good month. I mean, why bother in most cases and especially when you have HMGs now? So what’s wrong with LMGs as less powerful but significantly more mobile option that has significantly better spare ammo capacity and better mid range potential but with a caveat that it’s not simply feasible to handle it like John Rambo and splitting some select weapons into a separate weapon category that may or may not fall into the assault class and have them used as the A(utomatic)Rs that they are and not LMGs that they are not.
1 Like
good thing is he most likely figures out that in first game and proceeds to game that actually focuses on historical accuracy if thats what hes looking for.
Well they currently are more mobile than HMG if thats what your saying.
What they lack compared to HMG is the damage & ammo capacity to be actually effective at pretty much anything.
This game is pretty much all about mobility which the LMG’s already lack or if you have “stationary” weapon you really need the firepower like hmg or tank for example.
And to achieve that the LMG’s should either have 4x bigger magazines to be effective with theyr current rather small magazines / belts or grant them same damage as rifles has aka 1hit kill.
Then and only then we could actually discuss about nerfing theyr already rather nonexistent CQC capabilities.
And im quite sure people rather have these somewhat obsolete LMG’s as they are rather than face 1hit kill lmgs with near lazorbeam accuracy when bipoded.
You actually could use it like big J in past. It got nerfed.
And now LMG’s only use in current game is the HMG.
I’d say they’re too mobile for their own good. Bear with me here, they’re technically able to be effectively used as SMGs so people use them as SMGs. Well, shucks, we need to nerf them so they’re not overwhelmingly more powerful than SMGs they shouldn’t be compared to in the first place. If you add a 2-3 second set-up animation to assume a firing position like you would a mortar they objectively can’t be used to rush a room but they don’t need to be balanced against SMGs and Assault Rifles since they’re not competing against them anymore. So, no reason to limit them to semi weapon damage or have them carry 1-2 spare clips.
They can be used to plug a gap, cover an angle or provide long range suppression fire on demand. As they should. Rather then be treated as a poor man’s AR or a heavy SMG.
And HMGs should have ammo just like AT cannons. I love them like this but I’ll be the first to say the current heat system is bullshit.
No they aint, hipfire is horrible compared to smg as well as shooting while standing the recoil is from different planet compared to smg.
So theyr already rather ineffective even if we disregard theyr awful mobility.
If this was the case as it was years ago, people would use lmg’s instead of smg’s.
But as thats not the case I can rather confidentally say people use by far more smg’s than lmgs.
No, then they would have to be balanced against BA, SA, AR and to some extend even smg’s.
As in that case the lmg would be fighting at mid-long range where the lack of its power would make it again inferior to BA, SA, AR and at mid range even against smg.
Except theres no suppression effect far as I know, which is just good thing.
Imagine unironically coping that hard about LMGs
1 Like
You really went thru all that trouble to download and watch his replays bro?
Thats low…