Kenonier

Members
  • Content count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kenonier

  • Rank
    Technician 5th

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
    All
  • Soldier
    Infantry
  1. Well, there's a yes and no to that. Bipods would make machinegunners more stationary than what they currently are, but not with smart usage. Sitting on a window-sill with your bipod deployed at all times is just looking to get yourself sniped of course, but the whole point to a bipod is to enable the user to be able to lay down sustainable accurate fire and then quickly relocate. With that in mind, you could deploy up on a low cover, gun down a few enemies moving up a street, then step off and head for a different location. It's not much different from how I use my machinegun now, minus the bipod, because with the LMG's current immobility and horrid hip-fire, it's certainly not a run-and-gun weapon. In addition to that, bipods would actually enhance a machinegunner's ability to engage snipers and marksman. By stabilizing your weapon, you can put down some long range fire on a sniper's position and either take him out, or make him back off. Of course, this is all theoretical, but bipods would actually be a good thing, trust me.
  2. Dumb Ways to Die (H&G Version) Set fire to your car Hit a sniper with a wrench Use a medkit that takes too long Use yourself as noobie bait Dumb ways to die So many dumb ways to die Dumb ways to di-ie-ie So many dumb ways to die Using the Jeep's first aid kit Charging against a Johnny gun Falling right out of the sky Using a one hour old unmodded Kar Dumb ways to die So many dumb ways to die Dumb ways to di-ie-ie So many dumb ways to die Invite a random in a car Hit a clannie with your ride Take your mods off in war battles Use a pocket pistol as a primary Dumb ways to die So many dumb ways to die Dumb ways to di-ie-ie So many dumb ways to die Keep a noob as a trainee Buy camo over new upgrades Crash your bike into a tree I wonder what this grenade do... Dumb ways to die So many dumb ways to die Dumb ways to di-ie-ie So many dumb ways to die Press E during an intense plane dogfight... Disturb a nest of snipers for no good reason... Fall off the edge of a rooftop while shooting... Drive around an enemy tank in close quarters... Run across a street all out in the open... They may not rhyme but they're quite possibly The dumbest ways to die The dumbest ways to die The dumbest ways to di-ie-ie-ie So many dumb So many dumb ways to die Be safe around H&G... A message from Reto.
  3. Oh boy... This topic's going to be a touchy one... Alright, let me first lay down why I feel qualified to talk about this before I even write anything else. I use only LMGs in game across all factions because I like the firepower, though I prefer the M1919 and MG42 over the DP28 mostly because of a visual preference rather than any gameplay capacity. I've sunk over two hundred hours into the M1919 and about a quarter of that into the MG42, so I have used both weapons to quite an extent. Now that's clarified, let's delve into the meat and potatoes. Let's talk about each weapon individually first, before we talk about them separately. Starting off, the M1919. It's a good weapon that I often use at mid-long range because it hits damn hard, harder than any other machinegun available. It's also got some great on target accuracy with little horizontal spread. Downsides? It's RPM is not as high as say, the MG42, it has a great deal of vertical recoil, and the sights are large, bulky and will get you killed at some point in using it. Of course, weaknesses can be overcome with the right usage, carrying the weapon at the hip and only aiming in at the last moment is one way to defeat the sight, though a smart opponent may know to run to the side where they'll be obscured. Additionally, while the RPM is not as high as the MG42, it is still respectably dangerous against an unmodded SMG. As for the recoil, I find that tap-fire works best. (Really, tapfiring helps you with all the machineguns, with perhaps only the DP28 not needing it as much.) I cannot stress how accurate this gun can be at long range. I have picked off snipers with it before at distances of at least a hundred meters. Great range capability with trigger discipline. Now, let's move over to the MG42. It's got the highest RPM capability of all the machineguns, good middling damage, and a great sight picture. Downsides? Well, the two largest problems with it contribute alot to 'lack of range'. The first being the elephant in the room, the uncontrollable recoil. It's absolutely insane, and completely impossible without Tight Grip Gold. Of course, with the TGG badge, I find that it's a good weapon that can compete with the M1919 for reasons I'll explain momentarily. The other issue besides the recoil is the damage drop-off. This thing just doesn't do ranged combat. Even if you can hit a target at range with the sway, your opponent's just not going to feel the hit. Despite those limitations, I actually enjoy the MG42 for it's specific niche. It's really good at locking down corridors and areas where you know the enemy will pass through. Thanks to it's open sights and impressive RPM, it can saw through any opponent, Heavy Set Gold or not within forty meters. If your crouched, and know how to burst-fire, I'd put the maximum effective range out to about sixty-seventy meters. From that, we can tell that sights do play a role in balancing. It's not realistic, and I'd prefer that it wasn't balanced that way but I'm afraid that's just the way the game is made, so we must take sights into account when discussing balance, it's the sad truth. Let's also clear up; yes, the M1919 should have been modeled after M1919A6 variant rather than the A4 variant, we've also established that by now. Let's now ask the question, if we were to remove that blocky sight, would the M1919 be considered overpowered? I love the M1919, and hate that sight but... I've got to acknowledge both sides here. The MG42 would lose one of it's advantages over the M1919 with that nice open sight, and it'd make combating the weapon on the battlefield difficult. Really, between the two, I'd like to see a patch which addresses all LMG faults. M1919 loses the sight, MG42 gets a recoil reduction so that it's not pinpoint accurate like the M1919, but at least not requiring Tight Grip Gold, and the DP-28 gets a slight damage buff to compensate for it's low RPM. I feel that those changes would even out the crinkles between the top tier LMGs currently. Of course, bipods would change the LMG scene drastically and solve the comparison issues, but that's a dream gone up the chimney.
  4. Personally, whenever I pick up my BAR, I use it as an extended capacity semi-automatic rifle so it never, ever sees fully automatic fire. Just feels like a waste with only twenty rounds in the magazine and a long reload time to boot. But that's just my own personal preference, and I much prefer the 1919 over the 1918 anyway unless I'm feeling the history nostalgia. But anywho, I generally try to mod for stability with range and accuracy where possible. So to answer your question, I'd pick the chrome lined barrel with standard ammunition.
  5. Progress is good, but let's be realistic here. How many weapons would actually be effected by a long and short reload mechanic? If we're to be realistic here, then there's actually quite a limited amount of guns that would have a shorter reload mechanic, I'll explain why. The biggest reason is due to the design of many of the firearms used at the time and thus portrayed in game. First off, all the submachineguns are open bolt weapons, which means that the bolt sits behind the chamber and loads a bullet into it, only AFTER you pull the trigger. This is to give the barrel some airflow and cool it off faster, allowing for longer periods of firing without overheating. Because of this, a 'short reload' simply wouldn't work. You'd pull out the magazine, to put in a new magazine, but still be required to pull the bolt back. Furthermore, all the standard machine guns are of the same principle; open bolt firearms, so a quicker reload wouldn't work either. Moving on to rifles, first off; bolt action. This one really requires no explanation, it's a manually operated bolt. You pull it back, and stuff a new round/clip in. No room for a short reload. Semi-automatic rifles, short reloads? Ehh, maybe. The garand can ONLY be reloaded with an entire clip, no topping off. So no room there. The G43 and SVT-40 however are both semi-automatic closed bolt weapons. First weapons on the list that could actually use a short reload mechanic. Moving on to our final entry, assault rifles! (I include the M1 carbine here, but NOT the FG42 for reasons later explained.) The STG-44s were originally open-bolt designed in the prototypes, but were swapped out for a closed bolt, so they could have short reloads. Same goes for the AVS, and the M1/M2 carbines. The FG42 is tricky, because it had both a open bolt AND closed bolt system. If the weapon's on semi-automatic, it's kept on a closed bolt to better facilitate accuracy (Open bolt weapons are, by nature, less accurate than closed bolt weapons because of the moving parts), but if it was switched to fully automatic, it was an open-bolt weapon for better barrel cooling. Hard to figure out how that would work into H&G. So, could it be implemented? Yes, I suppose so. But would there really be that many weapons which would benefit from a short reload mechanic? Outside of the assault rifles, and two of the semi-automatics. Nope.
  6. So I figured, ehh, why not? I roll always with machineguns so it shouldn't be much surprise that the top six are all LMGs save for the M1 Garand, which is probably only there because my first ever character was an American and I used him to grind up to the much beloved machineguns. It's pretty apparent which one's my favourite, though the MG42's a rising star, I'm quite enjoying using that one. Not really accurate with, well, any of the LMGs save for perhaps the M1918 which I sometimes use as a semi-automatic rifle when I'm feeling historically-accurate-nostalgia. The DP-28 is the lowest in the category, though around 80 kills an hour with it is technically a pretty good rating, I just don't enjoy the gun as much as the other machineguns out there. (Fingers crossed for a Tier-II Soviet LMG.) Moving down the list, got a couple miscellaneous guns I grinded a bit or used for awhile but didn't take too, until you get to the revolver. I always carry a machinegun and a sidearm on my main characters, and the M1917's saved my life many a time. Very fine secondary for when your in a jam. Move down to the P08, and it's a similar thing. Not a whole lot of time with it, a fair bit of kills with it. Handy to swap over to when the machinegun runs out of ammunition or when executing a sniper. Then there's the bolt-actions. No good with them. Small amounts of time in using them, with few kills though fairly good accuracy in comparison to my other weapons. I don't like them, and they don't seem to like me. Better to stick to the machineguns. (EDIT: To give one an idea of how bad I am with bolt actions, I have more kills with a KNIFE, than with both bolt-actions on the list COMBINED.)
  7. I actually talked about varying degrees of anti-aircraft guns on a different thread here: We need more anti-aircraft weapons, or just better anti-aircraft weapons - Period. I've rehashed this same plead over, and over, and over again that I don't much feel like writing anything long about it anymore. Which is a pity because I usually like going over the historical background being portrayed but I'm tired of having to point out the problems with overpowered aircraft and getting told: "Take advantage of it! Make some easy credits!" Anywho, details of what I said in the post linked above.
  8. Frankly, I think the last thing we need is people being able to swap between the infamous combo of an OHK and SMG even faster... But speaking from personal experience, I find that I'm able to swap from my machinegun to my sidearm generally pretty quickly by simply using the number keys. It helps that I am right-handed and so the WASD set-up puts my left hand right next to those keys which can be pressed quickly enough to swap over. It's certainly saved my life a couple times where a guy's coming up on me and I don't have six seconds to reload the big machinegun, or even at times where I've run out of ammunition and a quick swap over to a handgun let me finish him off.
  9. It's just your friendly neighborhood machinegunner... The MG42 when modded right is an absolute joy to use for me personally. It's not as accurate as the M1919, but it makes up for that with better sights, a higher possible RPM, and ease of target acquisition. Generally, I try to mod it to have as low RPM as possible which puts it around 708 RPM if I recall correctly, to warrant some easier control ability but with such a set-up and a disciplined trigger finger, one can hit targets out to about eighty meters but it's really most effective at about fifty. Because just spraying all your rounds at once without burst-firing is a really good way to get one's self killed. I find that it's great at chokepointing, setting yourself up with a good view of a theoretical 'corridor' that the enemy's going to be using, then gunning them down as they come through it before relocating to another 'corridor' to do the same thing again. Of course... There's a catch. This is all going off experience done with the Tight Grip Gold (TGG) badge equipped. Without it, one couldn't hit a guy at five paces even while aiming down sights, trying to burst, and the whole lot. It's appallingly impossible to use without the tight grip badge and that's where the biggest issue arises. Most people don't pay for Veteran's status, so they will have to use the tight grip badge in lieu of Heavy Set. Which will ultimately lead to a number of deaths to the infamous "bush warriors". I'd really like to see it buffed to the point where it has the same performance as TGG without the badge equipped. It's hard enough to control with the badge as it is, so bringing it up to that level where one needs to be smart about using it, but where it's not utterly impossible to use without putting one's self at risk to the OHK craze.
  10. I'd actually suggest the BAR. It's a good solid, hard-hitting automatic rifle that has a good reload time, and fairly nice sights for a USA machinegun. It's underestimated often, especially since it pales in comparison to the heavy-hitting M1919, and doesn't have a high fire rate. But since you'll be using it in semi-automatic only, then you won't be having an issue with that. Personally, I like to mod it out for damage to compensate for it's lower RoF and it performs admirably. If it weren't so outshined by the M1919 and the Johnson, it'd probably see a lot more use by the community. With it's performance all said and done, it just looks and feels right. You feel more mobile with it than other LMGs, and a whole lot more adaptable. Part of that might be historical nostalgia, it's the light machinegun of the USA that truly saw widespread use across all theaters of warfare by the common infantryman (The M1919 did as well, but it really ought to be the M1919A6 variant to look proper).
  11. I'm glad you brought that up! I love talking about the history of warfare! Especially about machineguns, my favourite topic. Now what we call "suppressing fire" or "suppressive fire" or "covering fire" these days actually went by a much different term when it first originated around the beginning of World War I as well as some smaller earlier conflicts. With the advent of the machinegun and accurate fast firing artillery, a theory was made in which the term "neutralization" was used. The idea was that you 'neutralized' a zone in your area in which the enemy could not advance or conduct operations. These were also sometimes called dead zones or beaten zones by machinegunners which would use their heavy water-cooled weapons to lay down indirect firepower (Yes, you heard me. They would calculate the arc of their MG's bullets to use indirect fire.) to prevent enemy troops from advancing or from returning fire at their own troops. It'd also kill some of the enemy and wear down their morale. The idea of neutralization and the beaten zone began to change as the nature of infantry warfare changed. No longer were static emplacements as effective in mobile warfare, seen first in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, and especially later on in WWII where units had to be fast, react quickly, and be able to pack up and move in a hurry. The heavy water-cooled machinegun had to go (Though they saw further limited use in reserve units and defensive formations). In it's place, the light machinegun stepped in. Previously, machinegun teams never communicated with infantry on where to fire, but with the introduction of the light machinegun, suddenly squad leaders could bring heavy firepower to bear on zones where necessary. This is where the more modern concept of suppressive fire came in. The heavy fire ability of a machinegun meant that it could 'encourage' the enemy to keep their heads down (At risk of being shot) whilst friendly troops either moved up to assault a building, throw in grenades, use a flamethrower, flank around, and et cetera et cetera. The possibilities were limitless because effective covering fire against an opponent that doesn't want to die essentially locks them down in one place. In modern warfare, getting locked down in one place is usually not a good thing. You can be flanked, have mortars dropped on your head, have grenades thrown at you, and so on. Now let's bring that back to the video. Effective covering fire locks down the enemy and prevents them from returning fire, and hopefully will lead to your buddies getting in to take them out. The keyword here however is "effective". The enemy must feel at risk of being shot to keep their heads down. If bullets are wildly veering off target, then they won't feel threatened by that risk and they're going to continue shooting at you and your buddies. From the footage, we can't see where the enemy he's shooting at is, they could be high on a ridge, or low in a trench. So it's impossible to tell how accurate he's being but to be optimistic, let's assume his shots are hitting at least near the target. It'd still have been much more accurate, ammo conserving, and effective to have used the bipod on that low road and delivered continuous streams of fire from there. Now that's not saying that guy's got guts. He's certainly brave, walking out onto that road, wide out in the open and shoulder-firing that ten kilogram beast of a gun. I'd sure shake his hand and tell him that he's got guts, but it was an unnecessary risk that puts not only him but his fellows at risk.
  12. I've found encounter matches to just be easy to rack up kills with whilst using machineguns. Never on an encounter match have I ever had a bad round while using one of the top three of my beloved LMGs, be it the DP28, the MG42, or the M1919. High ammunition capacity's vital when dealing with the threat of multiple targets at once, and the ability to reach out and hit targets at range comes in handy when dealing with infantry charging towards the point. The layout might play a role in the regard that there's always infantry targets running across open fields, completely exposed to the punishing volleys of a machinegunner. Or then there's all the little chokepoints, the doors and openings in the walls where rifle-toting infantrymen go charging in, heedless to the threat of a machinegun watching that very opening. Of course, the most devilish (And probably unsporting) tactic I ever came up with was to roll up a T20 Kosmo on one of the low hills around the objective, and to gun down any infantry that tried to advance. I can still hear the screams of "Soviet bias" to this day...
  13. In total, I have seen a tank shoot down a plane twice. Just twice, after many hours of gameplay. Both times were in the same match where the tank user was experienced, and the pilot making ludicrously low and slow dives which led to him getting blown out of the sky. Such few, rare occurrences are not justification to overstate the threat of tanks shooting down planes; unless you can provide solid evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, I've mentioned it in previous posts, and I'll mention it now. Anti-aircraft emplacements or even anti-aircraft gun trucks are almost completely and utterly worthless against enemy aircraft (Besides recon planes). I have tried many times, across multiple matches and factions to try and find out if they can consistently shoot down heavy or even medium fighters. Unless the plane was already smoking, your not going to destroy it quickly enough before it comes for you and either turns you to ashes with bombs, or blows a hole through you with cannon fire. Even when fighters charge head-on into anti-aircraft fire, your not likely to take them out before your killed. Despite numerous attempts at aiming for the cockpit (To try and kill the pilot) or just the fuselage, this ultimately will lead to the anti-aircraft gunner's death. So yes, anti-aircraft fire is almost entirely ineffective. Only the luckiest or most persistent AA gunner (Which has been bombed numerous times for his effort), will maybe kill one fighter. With said ineffectiveness of anti-aircraft fire, you find many, many pilots taking advantage of this credit-making weakness. I have joined rounds where pilots will mercilessly bomb anything that moves, be it a tank, a jeep, or even that one poor sod on a bicycle. With no defense against this punishing bombardment, and with paratrooper planes being blasted out of the sky with no ability to man effective AA defenses, then yes, I would say that ground forces are suffering. And this happens across all factions. Be it the United States, Germany, or the Soviet Union. Going against aircraft that are any heavier than recon planes without having your own aircraft to defend you, is absolute hell. It's so bad, that I know of players which will leave matches the second a heavy fighter appears in the sky. So it's properly mind-boggling to consider making heavy aircraft to have even more health or do even more damage or go even faster, without properly giving ground forces (Be it infantry, recon, paratroopers, or tankers) an effective defense against airborne threats. I've said it before numerous times, and I'll say it again. Anti-aircraft guns must be buffed in some way by either introducing heavier anti-aircraft ordnance, or just simply increasing the damage of current AA for ground troops to have even a remote chance of combating the current bombing/strafing menace.
  14. And at the same time, infantry and other ground forces shall suffer all the more... The last thing we need is for planes to be buffed even more because as is, anti-air is laughably useless against heavy fighters or even against medium fighters. They move so fast that they're impossible to track with ground-based anti-air weaponry and they have so much health (The "flying fortresses" of the sky...) that even if you do manage to hit them, it's like shooting BBs. All you'll do is tick the pilots off, to which they will then come back and bomb you. Repeatedly. Let's focus on getting anti-air to where it should be before we make aircraft even more powerful, shall we?
  15. The title above also says; "Inequality". (Translated with google translate, there might be some errors.) But to address the meat and potatoes of the post, yes, there can be inequality at times. Especially during war battles where it's up to the generals to provide your resources and they send you in on foot against planes, tanks, and mechanized assault teams. Even in Staged battles, you may find yourself going against hordes of tanks whereas on your side you've got one little light tank to try and hold them at bay. It can be frustrating, it can be agonizing, and hopefully Reto can make some changes to the matchmaker. Currently, the biggest challenge that needs to be overcome that I've heard the most people complaining about is getting deployed as a pilot or tanker as one person versus four or five. It leads to them getting destroyed, to the infantry getting crushed in the middle, and to dissatisfaction everywhere. The solution might seem easy to assume at first; just have the matchmaker deploy even amounts of tankers/pilots. That would work, except for auxiliary seats. You also have to somehow account for if an infantry squad is suddenly going to swap over and play as tankers or if a armor squad is going to swap and play paratroopers. It's a very tricky proposition that I honestly don't see a solution for.