I don't really think the problem is the BAR, the real thing is their innate long-range DPS and probably still the vet 3 RA. Vanilla Rifles are basically guaranteed to beat vanilla Grens at every range without a large cover disadvantage, and with the 81mm mortar complementing them now that can't really be justified. Double BARs continue this trend and leave the timeframe where Grens can hope to beat them at long-range to the initial LMG42s, combined with Rifles' vet 3. Knock off say 0.3 DPS per man on Rifles and maybe 5% RA at vet 3 and Grens will compete reliably at long-range (though it shouldn't be by a ton) against them at all stages of the game as they should since Rifles definitely don't have crappy support anymore.
Now double M1919A6s, those things are an unredeemable concept.
Oh and ISes - I don't fucking know
Also, Rifles beat Grens at
every range, not just mid and closer.
Allies infantry are allowed to have 6-man squads but Axis are not, UK and USF are allowed to carry around the best weapons while axis shouldn't, UK and USF deserve to have the best infantry at Vet3 but axis don't! Conclusion? you already know
I thought the optimal range for pgrens is medium range.
I also thought that someone also proved that vet3 pgrens beat vet3 bar rifles.
Can anyone confirm and i don't mean ingame opinions.
It's comparative, they gain more from going to mid-range (LMGs, bolt-actions) and less from going to close-range (SMGs) than some other weapons. They still use the general idea of more DPS from being closer as nearly all weapons, but the distinctions in practice are there.
Tried it myself, at mid and close range they do very reliably. Pretty sure they'll win by 2 models even at mid-range. Therefore the issue falls in the XP disadvantage they'll certainly have.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
