I hope some of my suggestions get added to this new suggestions category
1 Like
It just got moved. I don’t mind the extra attention, gives this suggestion a second life.
Speaking of second life…
@Euthymia07-live @JestersTM @MajorMcDonalds
Could we perhaps get a official response to or acknowledgement of our concerns, and that the devs have at least been informed and are considering options on how to move forward?
I appreciate that the first suggestion moved to this new category was this one, which hints at some acknowledgement, but one in writing would also be appreciated.
8 Likes
They should add my sub trees post fr fr. Even though it’s pretty small
1 Like
Its been pretty obvious for years that the lewis is highly demanded in the tech tree for allies…and that there is a vacant spot in Allies for a mid BR moderate capacity mg.
Would have been an easy home run…why always a swing and a miss
4 Likes
I think that would undermine the thread sadly, it’s been three days since the first posting of this suggestion, the bulk of the engagement has already passed…
Edit, I’ll add a poll down here:
[Move the Lewis to the tech tree]
- Aye
- No
0
voters
6 Likes
How is there always someone that manages to disagree with a good suggestion?!?
1 Like
You know, I’ve only had one person openly disagree with me on this topic, some random guy on one of Quadro’s videos.
He thought that the Faction is called “USA” and that the British are “lucky” to get anything at all and I should just be content with my lot.
Some people just want to step on a dream, apparently.
Top comment from one of the largest (if not the largest, I think) Enlisted Youtuber videos, this idea really is mainstream, DF would be wise to implement it.
3 Likes
There are somehow 2 dudes rn that don’t want my sub trees even though you only gain stuff from it!
1 Like
Yes we forwarded the concerns about the Lewis to devs, it’s obviously a very popular gun, and at least one variant should be in the tech tree
18 Likes
Thank you!
3 Likes
Thank you!
I don’t mind there being a event Lewis.
Maybe when a TT version comes out that one can just have the skin of the current one? Because the current version does represent the most common variant, it above any other deserves to be in the TT.
4 Likes
I’m ok with just adding these weapons to the TT and we have 1 event weapon of each.
Could you please also forward:
- changing the colour of range numbers for plane rearmament, mortar and running distances from white to yellow? White blends in
- adding an arming/disarming point timer for destruction to encourage players to do it or actually reward those who do
- changing the colour of the players own spawn points to lime green on our map to better track which one is ours? It can get confusing
Thank you!
Yeah, and the event one SHOULD be the TT version.
Also when is the Scotti Naval Rifle getting it’s 25 round magazine?
sIG beings put back at br2?
3 Likes
Make these suggestions, in my sIG is BR 2 post, there’s plenty of clips of the sIG getting destroyed by BR I stuff.
3 Likes
TBH, assuming you’re referring to the Dutch M.20 Lewis Gun with that, that one is actually somewhat distinct from the others, mainly being that it exclusively uses a custom 97 round drum magazine design.
But anyways I do support the idea of adding the Lewis gun to the tech tree. Honestly they could add quite a lot, such as the following:
BR3: regular Lewis Gun
BR4: Home Guard Lewis Gun (has higher rof due to being converted aircraft models) w/ 47 round mag
BR5: Home Guard Lewis Gun (same thing with the rof) w/ 97 round mag (not sure if there’s any of these which had a bipod but it’s hypothetically possible)
I really want to run a BR3 British MG squad
1 Like
I agree with the entire premise of the thread on the caveat that we get a similar lewis gun variant that we get from the event- But the rear sights are folded down so you can actually see.
1 Like
If I could just borrow a moment of your time, I have an idea for what version should be the tech tree Lewis:
The Lewis Mk I*
The only real difference between the Mk I and the Mk I* is the slightly different buttstock, which now includes a oil-bottle on top and a information disc on the right side.
I believe this to be the most painless way to solve this issue, the current Lewis can stay as is, the earlier unmodified variant, a curisoity for people who want a early WW1 weapon, then we can have the British production upgrade/simplification in the tech tree. The added benefit, the current Lewis gun can stay without worry as a seperate weapon, and it also avoids the problem of adding something mental (excuse the word) like a aircraft version of the gun over the standard infantry pattern to the tech tree.
Another benefit is that his model already exists, as the Soviet premium weapon, saving time on modeling. This is perfectly fine though, Soviets have it as lend-lease, whilst the Commonweath/Allies get it as as standard, because it is theirs after all.
Temporarily available: Lewis gun squad
.
Some other changes too, to consider:
- Current “Lewis .303” to be renamed “Lewis Mk I”, to match the name of the new “Lewis Mk I*”.
And, - Adding the bipod to the current Lewis would be grand, too.
Note on the names:
The only official designation at the time was “Mark I”, as far as I can tell official records make little to no distinction between the two patterns. The Mark I and Mark I* reflects archival Ordnance classification, not popular or Wikipedia-level nomenclature, it’s the names of the patterns as used by the Royal Armoures. Here’s Jonathan Ferguson refering to this perticular model as the Mark I*, based on the addition of a oil bottle (5:40):
In short, we would simply have a Winter MP-40 or cloth-covered Sniper variant situation, both identical in terms of stats, only difference is their looks. Russians get to have a premium copy with a premium squad using Russian ammunition, the Commonwealth gets a tech tree copy using British ammunition.
Would you be comfortable/able to just forward this as a possible solution to a already forwarded concern immedietly, or should I make another suggestion just for this…?
I want to avoid breaking the ‘duplicate topic’ rule, all discussions on one topic should be done in one place after all, so I thought I’d try doing just that right here first.
Thank you for your time, @Euthymia07-live.
1 Like