M1919A6 AB LMG

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[EliteGren]

Swap this with the Grease Guns from Inf. It would make alot more sense for inf to have firesupport teams like these and AB some kind of assault weapon that is not too strong. Thoughts?

[skaffa]

Could be interesting on Rangers.

[Groundfire]

Swap this with the Grease Guns from Inf. It would make alot more sense for inf to have firesupport teams like these and AB some kind of assault weapon that is not too strong. Thoughts?

I like it and is worth a shot if we are going to keep giving AB close combat weapons. That LMG is a piece of shit. But then why even have AB rifles if AB have have a decent AI option?

Could be interesting on Rangers.

Quit beating the dead horse. It's a design decision to exclude some weapons from some units, otherwise we should just give every weapon to everyone and be done with it.

[TheVolskinator]

Keep Gguns on rifles, and give them to ABs as well. Then swap LMGs from ABs to rifles. Win.

[AmPM]

Keep Gguns on rifles, and give them to ABs as well. Then swap LMGs from ABs to rifles. Win.

OR, remove BAR from Rifles, give them LMG with SF, move BAR without SF to AB and Rangers.

[skaffa]

Quit beating the dead horse. It's a design decision to exclude some weapons from some units, otherwise we should just give every weapon to everyone and be done with it.

So BARs on grens are fine ? Which apparantly dont have a weakness ?

[EliteGren]

But then why even have AB rifles if AB have have a decent AI option?

Not sure actually. But I was never a fan of BARs on AB, I would much prefer Grease Guns because they aren't as powerful as thompsons and fit the AB design nicely because they have to keep moving. Giving them an LMG is outright retarded, they have to stay still to use it and their armor only works when they move. That's a big...wait for it..fail

[Groundfire]

Giving them an LMG is outright retarded, they have to stay still to use it and their armor only works when they move. That's a big...wait for it..fail

It' was firespark's thing...

[RikiRude]

Quit beating the dead horse. It's a design decision to exclude some weapons from some units, otherwise we should just give every weapon to everyone and be done with it.

Ah like luft has!

I like how some things are perfectly fine on axis, but god forbid it happens on allies 

[Malgoroth]

Remove BAR suppression, give grease guns to AB, give suppression fire-less BARs to rangers, give lmg to rifles.

These all sound so familiar 

But seriously, it'd help the Ami faction a bit (I wouldn't go so far as to say the NEED it, but imho Americans are boring as fuck to play and could use some changes to spice them up).

Also, it may be worthwhile that, after removing BAR suppression, you give the Americans a 4 man 'BAR squad' with riflemen health for individual dudes. They'd have 2 BARs with the suppression fire and they'd cost 220mp 90 munis. That way the faction doesn't lose the suppression it needs, you can identify the squad that can suppress so it's not just a mass of BAR squads some of whom MAY have the suppression fire and some who might not, and it adds a second unit of infantry for diversities sake.

Go ahead and put me on the dev team now   

[Tymathee]

so rangers can't get lmgs but grens can get scoped mp44's? i thought a long time ago it was a "design decision" that grens wouldn't get mp44's but modify them and it's okay? There are a lot of things i've seen that used to be "design decisions" that were scrapped later or forgotten about.

It's my opinion the LMG fits rangers perfectly, it turns them into a different unit, it's not an assault unit anymore but defensive, which is sorta what the infantry company is and airborne are supposed to be the fast assault, hit and run doctrine yet they get a weapon that doesn't even allow them to use what they're good at, moving.

Remove BAR suppression

If you remove bar suppression, remove cheap sprint from pzgrens, and assault all together or else they'll just run all over American infantry.

[Malgoroth]

Did you bother to read the rest of my post, or did your hawk like eyes lock onto 'remove BAR suppression' only?

[Groundfire]

Ah like luft has!

I like how some things are perfectly fine on axis, but god forbid it happens on allies  

Pfft, we removed weapons from Luft.

Im also quite confident that with the lower pool of rangers and their relatively cheap MP cost, if we gave them all the weapons unlocks that have been requested, Infantry players would cease using Riflemen.

Alot of these "balance discussions" are more just "QQ, remove/add the shit I like or dont like" instead of actual balancing anything.

BARs on rangers, not gonna happen, sry guys move on. We are not gonna institute a weapons unlock that detracts from the usage of a factions main infantry unit.

[DarkSoldierX]

Pfft, we removed weapons from Luft.

Yeah cuz they had a insane amount. Imagine if AB could buy RRs, Thompson, flamethrowers, or bars.

[Jodomar]

Bar suppression doesn't help against assault nades anyways Tym. I like the idea because Americans are indeed too boring to play with for the most part. You have a super OP bar suppression and the crazy thing is you can get this on every rifle man squad, which completely nullifies all axis infantry except those buffed by Fanaticism. The option for rifles to get a defensive lmg type weapon sounds great, the 4 man bar suppression team seems awesome (maybe three bars instead of 2 or a toggle like ability that makes them stand still but only suppress. This would make them a semi-mg that is highly mobile). Grease guns to airborne would be awesome and best of all it makes sense!

[RikiRude]

i dont get how there are some ideas that seemingly the entire community agrees on, but for some reason the devs say it doesnt fit in the game. everyone has said how bad they want grease guns off of rifles and onto AB or lets say ab rifles, and we have all talked about how much people hate lmg on AB and want them on rangers. but it's just not going to happen.

then we have zeal infantry back on terror... makes no sense to me. i cant imagine 1-2 man zeal squads with PPs activated.

[Malgoroth]

zeal if and only if you set yourself up as the perfect mg/arty target.

[Tymathee]

We are not gonna institute a weapons unlock that detracts from the usage of a factions main infantry unit.

...does anyone use a non luft or FJ in luftwaffe? how many volks or grens do u see in a lot of terror companies? I don't see a lot of tommy's used in commando companies, what about airborne? Yeah...not a lot of rifles there, just ab rifles and ab.

[RikiRude]

...does anyone use a non luft or FJ in luftwaffe? how many volks or grens do u see in a lot of terror companies? I don't see a lot of tommy's used in commando companies, what about airborne? Yeah...not a lot of rifles there, just ab rifles and ab.

as long as there are only buffs in a doctrine to special units, no one will use the regular units. if commandos gets +1% more accuracy than tommies, i wont use tommies. maybe there should be more cross....platform? buffs. AB support units get elite armor, and regular support units get nothing... well fuck id be dumb not to get AB support weapons for everything right?

[AmPM]

Whats wrong with making doctrines specialists in what they do with the troops they get?