What’s more likely to happen is that they will instead add a fixed dp for Russians, fixed mg34 (for Moscow Germans), the 1919 For usa, and perhaps also Brits…
I support the idea of differentiating fixed MGs across different armies, but I’m not so sure different supports/mounts are viable too. Mount height should be standardized, or else 1) there could be problems with the animation and collisions of the soldier manning the MG, and 2) there may be “tactical imbalances”, like, judging by your pics, that MG42 would possibly be the only one able to be fired from behind a window, while all the others would be too low to do so.
Maxim for Moscow and SG-43 in Berlin for Soviets would be more historically accurate instead of building MG42s themselves along with the option to put DShK that would be useful against both infantry and aircraft.
Buinding the MG nest on generic terrain would resort to the dedicated mount, benefiting from the lower profile and possible shield.
Instead, trying to build the MG close enough to a window or a sandbag would automatically switch the building type from the dedicated mount to a fixed mounting position on said barrier.
I don’t think there’s any actual need for heavy MGs, except as an alternative AA option. LMGs are just better against infantry, and most ground vehicles are too armored to be damaged by MG fire anyway.
engineer I needs some anti infantry stuff too, i keep finding myself using them to build rallies, few sandbags, maybe a barbed wire, but most of the time they are just trooper squad with more engineers
Yes, whatever works is good, self-adjusting tripod height could work too. The idea is just to avoid that, all of a sudden, you can’t build an MG behind a cover anymore because it would end up facing the wall.