Historical Accuracy in a historical game isn’t a valid reason? It not being the thing depicted in the game isn’t a good reason? So what it, wanting the Allies to be nerfed? Fixing a broken weapon?
Hahahaha… OK.
We’ll browse over that one… that point has been rendered moot ever since the merge… go whine to enlisted devs about that ones because HA has been thrown out the window… i enjoy running volkssturm in tunisia.
Have you not seen my point? There are other historically inaccurate things that are actually favored by the community… and until those issues are addressed you don’t get to touch mr stinger only because the reality of it is that you don’t like stinger brrt… it’s okay… br3 exists.
I am in favour of removing all inaccuracies and, while I aknowledge there are some favoured by the community at large, I fail to see how that invalidates my stance. I am not in favour of them so why should this one be any different?
Just joining into the thread.
This is something that has always slightly bothered me, and a backstory context for this weapon, for those who weren’t there when this was released. Because now it’s completely out of place of what would be considered reasonable for a single infantryman to carry, run around and fire accurately on foot while carry 200 rounds of ammo, it’s dumb. 100 rounds it’s passable. But otherwise, that’s the same as a vehicle, and even better at that, so there’s no logic in that. No matter how we try to defend it. But it was necessary.
Back then when this was released the “US and Friends” faction had nothing going on for updates. (And they’re still missing a TT Lewis gun, btw ) Back then people were complaining, only getting greedy premiums. And suddenly the Stinger came out. They even got it before Germany could have a 100 round MG-42 for years. That’s why the Cönders was so sought after once. And the Stinger not only does it get to have an increase rate of fire and accuracy but it can also carry 200 rounds. That felt like a subliminal joke back then and still.
Now it stands at an odd place, because they still have nothing going on in the MG department when playing BR V. The classic Browning 1919 was once a great weapon that worked well in the old Enlisted, but lately it doesn’t cut it in BR V anymore, and should probably become between a BR IV - V limbo. Watch your BR V log feeds and you’ll find mostly T20 kills for infantryman and the ocassional drum Thompson. But because besides being a “rare” weapon. The Stinger sets a precedent of what’s reasonable for an infantryman to carry and be deadly accurate on a quick turn. Firing from the hip should be incorporated more, the way we hold and aim flamethrowers.
On the other hand, I think the lying prone mechanic in Enlisted is a very underrated feature when it works and you manage to set an ambush. It’s fair and simple. Deadly accurate in long distances and should be implemented more.
2 Likes
“When it works” Which coincidentally with the bots… it doesn’t!
And surprise surprise not everyone likes to be mr ambush passively waiting for the enemy to come into their line of sight… the mounting feature is there for a reason… there is no logical reason to force this mechanic when all it does is slow down gameplay… which i wouldn’t be surprised if you’re happy about.
But i’ll again repeat… if you’re not a fan of high action fast paced die every other minute gameplay then get out of BRV… don’t try and dull it down to make it acceptable for you.
What’s with the browning hate… you even mention ambush playstyle which that’s actually perfect for… steady rof with zero recoil and adequate sights… mountable or not even ready to spray down squads.
Do you notice something? Stingers fast fire rate is perfect for the aggressive player… obviously i know you dislike this but refer to my point i’ve repeated soooo many times… dont go and try to push this mechanic that only serves to slow down gameplay.
Because go play hell let loose in that case if you want to prop up and wait for people to go into your line of sight with an MG… i’m sure you’d love it.
Until every MG requires mounted aim because no conscript was firing mg 42 from the shoulder then that feature can be laid to rest.
I’ll again repeat it should be used to introduce HMGs into low br… BECAUSE THATS WHERE THE SLOW PACED GAMEPLAY IS.
No, since im not looking forward to murder anyone and currently dont have access to mg42.
Id say even less than 10 would do.
It really only had 100 round belts because the 200 round boxes were too heavy and threw its weight off.
1 Like
an/m2 with 200 round ammo boxes were only used on airplanes. Stinger is modification of an/m2 with 100 round box, so while “compatible” 6 produced stingers only used 100 round boxes.
also some other differences between an/m2 and stinger
Essentially a man-portable AN/M2 aircraft machine gun, the Stinger retained most of the characteristics of the AN/M2 but in a more portable package. The Stingers had bipods and rear sights from Browning Automatic Rifles, a shoulder stock cut from an M1 Garand and a rudimentary solenoid trigger mechanism to replace the spade grips as seen on the aircraft AN/M2
And change its sound to use the M1919A6’s too. Using MG34 sound was a very weird choice.
when they first added it I was really confused why I heard MG34s in the pacific