Give it less than 100 rounds and make it so that you don’t need to mount it or lay down to fire it.
- Yes
- No
0
voters
It was already annoying with the Solothurn, we don’t need it on what’s supposed to be the main MG of the BR4 US, and a nerf to 75 or so rounds would be fair. Plus one.
3 Likes
Especially since every other AT rifle, you can use even when jumping. LOL
2 Likes
I like the idea they were going with, but it just wouldn’t work with something like the Browning M1919. I think it works with the Solothurn because of how much better the Solothurn is compared to everything else at BR1, but the Browning isnt exactly that much better than it’s counterparts even with the high ammo capacity. If it had like a 150 or 200 round belt then it could work though.
1 Like
Sure, but it’s only fair if they make ALL MG’s behave this way. Which…is not the case. By the time I’d go prone or mount the MG, I’d be killed by an Axis or Japanese player using a BR IV MG, because they can fire at will.
Honestly dont mind either way.
As is it fits really well with Johnson LMG main in BR4 for maneuver, than set up the 1919 for RATATATATAT
1 Like
I think if they made it so that you could only not fire while standing but could fire while crouching then this would actually be usable.
1 Like
I think you just can’t use it if you’re not happy with its shooting mechanics, it’s a free weapon, it doesn’t have collectible value or anything else that would make me use it for bragging rights, so I’ll just ignore it if I don’t like it.
2 Likes
BR3 - 50 rounds, heavy, no prone firing restriction would offer more playstyle to the BR3 that only have bunch of BARs to play with.
1 Like
But then we still need another BR IV TT Allied MG which will take months for them to add. A.k.a. The 97 rounder Lewis.
Why not just move the M1919A6 to BR 4?
1 Like
I don’t wish to be rude, but I do honestly have an issue with the idea of shoulder firing this MG:
1 Like
I think it would be fine with standing fire and “pseudo-ADS” where there’s zoom and minimal dispersion reduction (like the type 5 launcher, someone in the news post said it first). It also feels like more of a flavour addition than something that should be tech tree IMO (or at least, have something more conventional at BR 4 added first).
2 Likes
Rather have it fire from a aimed-hipfire type thing… i plan to make suggestion for this later unless anyone else would like to
3 Likes
Because they won’t find or won’t add a replacement MG for BR V by the time this update comes out. LOL
So rude! But, yeah, I see it. Maybe hip fire and ADS when mounted or laying down. Still, it will be very, very not competitive against Axis and Japanese MG’s.
1 Like
You mean like… A half-zoom…? That could work, honestly they should just do that, I don’t even think the weapon needs to be rebalanced if only that was done.
As long as the soldier isn’t using the sights directly, it’s fine, I just refuse to entertain the idea that anyone can maintain a sight-picture with this thing when using it standing, due to the lack of a buttstock.
This I agree with though, it’s not like the devs don’t have any ideas for what kind of a Western Allies MG people want in the tech tree. This is a gimmic item, not really suited for the tech tree.
The “Lewis .303” fiasco was quite clear, and a request for a sensible TT Lewis was forwarded, still we get this instead…
2 Likes
Exactly why I suggested a Lewis for BR III and according to the vote, the 97 rounder Lewis should be added to the TT at BR IV.
2 Likes
Yes, your description is exactly what I’m thinking.
And you have my sympathies with the Lewis gun. I want more commonwealth stuff too, but in separate trees (which is it’s own can of worms).
2 Likes
A 97 round Lewis really would be a “BR 4.5” weapon, magazine size is BR 5, but the other stats aren’t amazing.
I’ve argued for both BR IV and V in the past for it, I won’t make a fuss over either placement (best argument for a BR IV placement is that we can have the choices of a fast-firing Vickers K with 60 rounds or a slower firing 97 Lewis, because options are nice).
Appreciative nod, I don’t mind a combined Western Allies faction, as long as the Commonwealth gets properly represented.
Problem is, they just aren’t at the moment… So I’ll support any and all calls for expanded Commonwealth content, including a seperate faction, until the devs wake up and do something.
I’ve had this written in my forum profile since day 1 for a reason:
1 Like