I dont know if the worst accurate MGs ingame count as long range guns.
1 Like
A rapid-firing, high-capacity, well-sighted MG on a bipod is the worst accurate MG? lol
I do believe the next levels will be aircraft, but I don’t think either side is going to get a new squad to go with it. My bet is Allies get another attacker with a similar payload to the A-20, and axis get a fighter of some sort (no way to determine that payload)
1 Like
The game code is so F-ed up that bipods decrease (already bad) accuracy.
So yes, LMGs in enlisted are not long range weapons by any means.
1 Like
ME262 next 
Unlikely, the devs are retarded, but they won’t add that, especially in Normandy where CAS armament makes or breaks an aircraft (just look at P-38G vs P-51C). Me 262 will either be completely busted in Normandy or not particularly good (the 30mms can probably get away with some CAS, but armament is the ultimate determining factor). My money is on a copy paste Fw 190D.
Even so, it’s not like you need “long” range when the enemies are coming towards you. Most of the fights in Normandy are fought at medium to short range, so a fixed MG-42 can easily hold a sector.
Most arguments about faction strengths/weaknesses are mostly shortminded as they tend to compare same-level unlocks without taking into consideration everything else, like the map and the application of said weapons in defensive and offensive roles.
I find that Normandy needs some tweaks, Thompsons need to be put at earlier level and the Jumbo needs to be switched with the M10, but its mostly balanced as is. The main issue is the lack of experienced players who make use of the good weapons they have due to the complete inbalance in teams. An easy fix would be an XP-boost to the underdog faction, the more it is dogpilled the better it is, which incentivizes players to play it and rewards those who have to endure it.
I have no doubts it’ll come, but as a premium in Berlin.
At medium to short range I’d rather have AR or even SMG as they are more maneuverable, have less recoil and are more accurate.
With LMGs shooting at 100m it’s mostly up to RNG and volume of bullets.
LMGs are meant to be mid-long range weapons. Period.
Unless you are enlisted developer. Than you have no F-ing clue how LMGs work.
1 Like
Bro what are you on about? This is such a schizo post.
MG34/42 have 0.65/0.68 dispersion. Whats the point of ROF if it screws up recoil more?
M1919 has dispersion of 0.4 and has 100 bullets. Thats an actual mid-long range weapon.
3 Likes
You dont have any clue about the data mess behind the game.
1 Like
What does have to do with anything. I just made mention that the Axis have more than enough weapons to be able to capably handly the Allies in Normandy in a defensive role and don’t need the addition of a scoped STG that would further the imbalance of Normandy.
You said German MG are mid-long range guns, yet the M1919 is the sole MMG which is actually useful at range. The accuracy of the German ARs are also questionable apart from the Scoped StG.
Apart from SMGs, American autos are more accurate. M2 is worse than FG, but the gap is 0.10
1 Like
Us weapons are more Than good enough.
M2 carbine is a powerhouse , it’s imo one of, if not the best cqc weapon ingame
Bar a2 shreds
Tommy a1 is amazing
19a4 destroys squads.
And so on.
Even on tanks, the 76 is more than enough to open tigers in 1 shot
M10 doesn’t need to be swaped over jumbo
Neither Tommy needs to be unlocked early.
Sadly most players there ain’t on par, and rather play with Springfields coz they belive m2 carbine is bad
Over all campaigns, alies normandy is literaly broken to play with, but people are just afraid to play it and think Muh mp43 is better… And isn’t. Imo ofc
So no, a sniper stg wouldn’t change much.
They play with springfields not because they prefer it over the M2 but because they’re bots. It’s somewhat balanced as is, I said, but it could be better if what I suggest was done. The M1A1 Thompson is not a ground breaking gun but it makes the Allies just a little more competent at CQC and the M10 being swapped would give the allies a tank that can actually have a chance against later vehicles yet it’s objectively worse than the Jumbo so it only makes sense.
I can’t comprehend how “some” people, who just so happen to also have gloriously-depicted german soldiers in their profiles, can’t recognize that Normandy is in a shit place. I’d love it to actually become competetive like Berlin, which is both more enjoyable to Allies and Axis players alike. Right now, playing Axis Normandy is a snoozefest, it’s boring and repetive. The allies rarely ever get past the first cap because they constantly get dogpilled by better equiped Axis players and lack of experience players on the Allied side.
Us lacks nothing besides playerbase.
Us normandy is more than competitive, just lacks, playerbase
None of the weapons is worst persay or doesn’t do the job.
Just lacks playerbase.
Exacly the same that happen to axis Tunisia.
Sorry but my German profile Pic has nothing to do since I play and max everything in-game.
And most sides, inclusing normandy, I enjoy alies more.
One day, playerbase will shift to alies normandy as it did happen to axis Tunisia. And we all see how broken thar campaign is.
kinda racist
btw my ingame profile has Montgomery and otherwise US pilot so shouldn’t I be allied biased then?
1 Like
Whitch part? Give some arguments instead of insulting or fuck off.
Normandy is balanced, only thing that will be unbalanced is playerbase.
For example Normandy Allies in NA server dominate.