so fits very well in “history” argument
Yet, classified as assault rifle in the game, so again history works well here
Ironicly, because history. This exact cartridge has slightly higher dmg on LMG RD-44
( Another good history example )
While other LMG’s MG42 vs Kar rifle for example have quite notably different dmg.
Not sure how this could be explained in “history”
Or perhaps Balance > History ?
So “history” is fine if it suits your bias ?
With the amount of logical fallacies in your argument, you have to be a troll. Every one of your statements I have already answered. I just cant bro.
Dunno, you seem to be completely fine with rd44,ass-47 and what ever doesnt bother your history.
But bar should be arguably best LMG of BR2 because history.
Quite textbook example of biased nitpicking.
Effective method to get the post closed guys… i’m all for it… leave my precious alone… m1918a2 sights 
The amount of strawmen you have managed to stuff in that statement is sad.
Im sorry man, im doing my best here. I really shouldn’t fall for this ragebait but here I am.
I don’t think I’d argue it as a hard “earlier = lower BR” rule, because that clearly is not how the game always works, nor do I think it should be.
There are plenty of cases where a later version is better because it was genuinely an intended upgrade IRL, and plenty of cases where a later version is worse in-game because IRL it was simplified for mass production. Balance still has to come first when placing weapons within the BR system - magazine size, rate of fire, ammunition used, attachments, and so on obviously matter more than chronology by itself.
My point is more that, when the gameplay case is already reasonably close, historical and technological progression should be a valid tie-breaker.
That is why I think the plain M1918 is the best BAR candidate for BR II, rather than the A1 or A2. The A1 and A2 were intended as improvements over the original pattern, regardless of whether every soldier liked those changes in practice. In-game, they also have the very real advantage of bipods, which matter quite a bit now, especially after the bipod improvements.
The M1918, meanwhile, is the earliest and most basic BAR pattern. It lacks the bipod, does not really have some unique IRL or gameplay advantage over the later versions, and thematically fits much better alongside Springfields and other earlier U.S. equipment. Moving that one down would let the US have a more authentic interwar/early-war automatic rifle option, than the the more developed wartime BAR variants.
So I’m not saying chronology should override balance. I’m saying that, in this specific case, the M1918 is both mechanically the most reasonable BAR to move down and historically/thematically the cleanest choice.
I agree that there is nuance the the situation but I lean the other way. The bipods were considered a disadvantage in the increase of weight and negative effect on accuracy to the point that they were often removed. Although you are right that it would fit thematically I think that history should override that. I think the best option would be to add variety among the main 3 and add a prototype BAR to BR2 that would work as a worse version. That’s just IMO though.
woaw ran out of relevant history arguments ?
No, but everytime I give one you pretend it doesn’t exist and respond to an argument I never made. Your to stubborn to change your mind, not interested in rational debate, and insult my character instead of face my argument. You are simply not worth my time.
Dunno, we kind of figured out that this game is about historical as my little pony.
Yet somehow thats your one and only argument.
Was there one ?
We have Bren Mk I and Vickers-Berthier for USA, and MG 13, ZB-26, and Breda Mod. 30 for Germany. Sounds fair enough to me. Doing this means Germany needs a buff for tier 2 machine guns as well. Also there are many event and battle pass guns for both factions I personally have, so doing this wouldn’t change much.