Login

russian armor

Double M1919 Rifles

27 Dec 2015, 22:34 PM
#41
avatar of CookiezNcreem
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15

Another solution, or a expansion on the "setup" idea

Maybe make all LMG perform Infantry section cover bonus style, if in cover you tear shit up, if moving /a-moving you don't do well at all.

Sov guards and sections would be balanced this way.

There could still be fire and move "mid range" weapons, buff pgrens STG, leave BAR as is, if OKW wants to fire and move they get g43 or STG ober, etc

For Brits to fire on move they need commandos with Bren. Soviets have shocks. So there. :snfPeter:
28 Dec 2015, 03:06 AM
#42
avatar of The_Courier

Posts: 665

I'm not sure a setup time would solve the problem. It would just mean close range units could easily bumrush them.

How about giving LMGs a modifier against cover? As in, it would be worse than other weapon type vs yellow cover, and lose a lot of its damage against green cover, such that it severely cripples their DPS. The problem with LMGs IMO is that they can easily be a-moved for the win given that they have such high DPS at all ranges. Perhaps this would force LMG users to micro their squads in order to destroy cover and/or flank enemies rather than vaporize lesser infantry (including MGs) because you clicked on them.

The potential pitfall I see is that it would overnerf Axis, especially Ostheer, because they often rely on LMGs more.
28 Dec 2015, 03:38 AM
#43
avatar of nodickwilliams

Posts: 230

Permanently Banned
RIP grenadiers, meet partisans. Outclassed in both veterancy and firepower, lmgs nerfed again. mg42 worst mg of ww2. Long live OSTRUPPEN 2K16
28 Dec 2015, 09:14 AM
#44
avatar of mycalliope

Posts: 721

i think the problem is the so called elite infy of axis are not performing nowhere near what they should be especially ober,pgs,storms and falls
28 Dec 2015, 09:35 AM
#45
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

Double 1919s are breaking the game...
28 Dec 2015, 09:50 AM
#46
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17885 | Subs: 8

Double 1919s are breaking the game...


Must be why infantry doctrine was uncontested meta for months, while rifle doctrine was neglected.

Oh wait...
28 Dec 2015, 15:32 PM
#47
avatar of Blalord

Posts: 742 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2015, 09:50 AMKatitof


Must be why infantry doctrine was uncontested meta for months, while rifle doctrine was neglected.

Oh wait...


Rifle flamers outclassed 1919 cause it ignored Receive accuracy, Cover bonus, Garrison play, now rifle flamers is gone ( was about time ), other problem can appear ;)

Calliope doctrine being very attractive ( every ability is nice, even in 1v1 ) make this problem appear more clearly
28 Dec 2015, 19:50 PM
#48
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2015, 09:50 AMKatitof


Must be why infantry doctrine was uncontested meta for months, while rifle doctrine was neglected.

Oh wait...


Same could be said about CAS. Was uncontested for what a year? Until everyone started using it. Then it became a problem... if I remember correctly it was until the next MWNL event..
28 Dec 2015, 22:32 PM
#49
avatar of drChengele
Patrion 14

Posts: 640 | Subs: 1

I'm not sure a setup time would solve the problem. It would just mean close range units could easily bumrush them.
... if caught out of position / on the move which is precisely the kind of weakness this unit needs. If they sit in cover in a defensive position they will still shred the close range units.
28 Dec 2015, 22:54 PM
#50
avatar of whitesky00

Posts: 468

... if caught out of position / on the move which is precisely the kind of weakness this unit needs. If they sit in cover in a defensive position they will still shred the close range units.


Sounds like a vicker's MG to me... useless on the move and killing units once set up? nah, i'll pass

smoke makes them useless, flame nade makes them useless. what's the point of making versatile infantry? might as well just spam MGs then lawl
28 Dec 2015, 22:55 PM
#51
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



Same could be said about CAS. Was uncontested for what a year? Until everyone started using it. Then it became a problem... if I remember correctly it was until the next MWNL event..


Difference was that not everyone got CAS on release and not everybody can just play heavy T1 + T2 with no tanks.
29 Dec 2015, 03:17 AM
#52
avatar of easierwithaturret

Posts: 247

I agree that LMGs are a bit of an issue in that they don't have much in the way of drawbacks and lead to less interesting gameplay. I don't see why M1919s in particular are an issue though. They're doctrinal and expensive (compare the performance of one M1919 to an LMG42 or LMG34), and given how much USF relies on munitions you can't just spam them without consequence. OKW and Ostheer both have effective blob counters. So yes there are some problems with M1919s, but not more than LMGs on any other faction.

Another minor thing is that they make BARs pointless. Lowering the cost of the BAR would solve that, but would give riflemen a buff they don't need right now. The BAR could use a look at, possibly make some changes to give it a more offensive/assault role.

I don't mind the idea of a slight setup time for LMGs, maybe similar to DoW1 with heavy bolters etc. The unit can still move freely, they just need to wait in place a short time in order to fire.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

609 users are online: 609 guests
8 posts in the last 24h
16 posts in the last week
137 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45028
Welcome our newest member, jackwrwc78
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM