My concerns: Since the patch that change infantry lethality, LMGs have been designated to long range weapons similar to SMGs excelling at close range. As the community most likely has realized these weapons can be extremely strong. These problems exist for several reasons including that long range being the most likely range for units to encounter each other in, also unlike weapons like the SMG, LMGs are still rather strong at all ranges while a weapon like the SMG are nearly useless outside of their intended range. Retreating units as well must also retreat through these units intended range if their attempts to close the distance fails, giving them another advantage in wiping retreating units.
Not to mention that this sort of balance isn't even well representative of of LMGs as a whole as these guns are hardly less efficient at closer ranges. In truth I do not believe there should be a heavy weapon excelling at long range as these weapons are simply too powerful, especially if massed.
My Suggestion: What I think would help the balance of these units is a rework of the weapons as a whole to create weaknesses and disadvantages while still maintaining a sense of lethality these weapons deserve.
LMGs should be general upgrade to normal weapons whose damage is consistent at all ranges, but in turn do less damage then other weapons to units in cover. This would solidify the LMGs role as a defensive weapon making them good for killing infantry attempting to cross large sections of land without cover, but be less useful in attacking entrenched units. It would also create a weakness for opposing forces to exploit, allowing them to use cover to overpower them and reducing their usefulness in in areas with a lot of cover. It would also be a better representation of their real life counterpart as these weapons lacked the precision to pick off enemies coming out of cover.
So what do you think of LMGs, and what do you think would help balance them?
0
Omega_Warrior
Freedom.Kite(?)
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
