Double M1919 Rifles
Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15
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.
Posts: 665
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.
Posts: 230
Permanently BannedPosts: 721
Posts: 1124
Posts: 17914 | 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...
Posts: 742 | Subs: 1
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
Posts: 1124
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..
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.
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
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.
Posts: 247
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.
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.483190.718-1
- 4.587233.716+3
- 5.1095612.641+19
- 6.894399.691+4
- 7.280162.633+8
- 8.1004649.607+5
- 9.304113.729+4
- 10.379114.769+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger