static and mounted mgs -1 reply

Please wait...

[21Pz]Stauffenberg

the Wishmaster

50 XP

29th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,040 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

good day, fh freaks i have something to start a blablabla about. i think the mgs on tanks and the static ones should have iron sights (like that japanese one on iwo jima) so it is 1. harder for them to hit infantery ( thats the reason why some dont like omaha) and 2. its just a far better feeling if you shoot with iron sights the second big issue to mgs is that they are far to week against planes. what is the use of an AA-mg on a tank if its to weak to shoot down anything before the tank is hit by the bombs? Its currently only of some use for infantery- but it is really an aa mg. I think it was even more realistic in vanilla bf, where you at least had a chance against planes, if you are in a tank or in the backseat of a plane, which is the very same useless, thats why noone uses them. thats my opinion, sry for my bad english and now please start discussing




Nuggetman

My Face is on Fire?

50 XP

21st January 2005

0 Uploads

341 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

I'd say wait until FH moves to where ever it's going before making ironsights standard on any weapons.




Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago
'[21PzStauffenberg']good day, fh freaks i have something to start a blablabla about. i think the mgs on tanks and the static ones should have iron sights (like that japanese one on iwo jima) so it is 1. harder for them to hit infantery ( thats the reason why some dont like omaha) and 2. its just a far better feeling if you shoot with iron sights the second big issue to mgs is that they are far to week against planes. what is the use of an AA-mg on a tank if its to weak to shoot down anything before the tank is hit by the bombs? Its currently only of some use for infantery- but it is really an aa mg. I think it was even more realistic in vanilla bf, where you at least had a chance against planes, if you are in a tank or in the backseat of a plane, which is the very same useless, thats why noone uses them. thats my opinion, sry for my bad english and now please start discussing

1) Iron sights sound good for MG's, but it would nerf them to the point where nobody (ie. bunnyhopping SMG'ers, and even strafing riflemen) would not be scared of MG's, and that would be bad. IRL, MG's may not have been as deadly as they are in FH, but IRL, people were afraid to die and an MG'er could be effective just by keeping people's heads down. The Type 92 (?) is not bad with iron sights because the sights are small and dainty :D Also, if you put iron sights on all the MG's, the top gunner position in tanks would become as useless as it is in vanilla. 2) As far as MG's vs. aircraft, the problem is that the damage is realistic, but the application is not. IRL, 1 MG is not going to shoot down an aircraft, (that's why they put multiple MG's on fighters) but if you had a platoon of tanks, now you have 4-5 MG's, and you would do better. Of course, IRL, you could get lucky and hit a fuel line, or the pilot, or something that might not bring the plane down, but force it to return to base. The single MG gunner may have a chance in vanilla, but that's not really realistic. Now when you have a position with 2 MG's, you can actually bring down aircraft, but it's difficult, usually because A) planes are a lot more maneuverable than IRL, B) The fighter always has a better firing angle due to the initiative and the fixed guns, and especially C) bomber pilots seem to think they should try to evade fighters, which is useless against a decent pilot and ends up with the gunner spraying lead all over the place. And your English is just fine, in fact better than some here who have it as a native language :D




Arisaka

Staff suffers from PCD

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

1,495 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago

before nerfing the machineguns the muzzle flash should be fixed. it's currently totally unrealistic, and makes it impossible to aim. both as infantry, tank MG'er or rear gunner on a plane.




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago

Iron sights for MGs: I would love to see XWWIIs MG42 gun+sight borrowed. It doesn't "nerf" an MG to have to look through their own sights! What's unrealstic is to get crosshairs while having your eyeball a foot above the bore! Either get no crosshairs and see where the bullets land, or you're going to have to look down the stupid length of the thing. Plus, it's far more immersive to play gunner. All of the infantry in XWWII is afraid of these things, trust me. Tank AA MGs could stand a bit more damage vs aircraft, but not much: 1. The rounds fired are small calibre 2. The target is at least 500ft away (due to altitude) 3. Would be silly to actually be shot down this way in under 2 passes (damaged yes, shot down no) As for Arisaka's comment: OMG YES. The muzzle flash is really bad and needs fixing just like you say.




Ohioan

Not Wise Shitashi - Cheston

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,604 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago

They aren't AA weapons strictly, and are meant to act more as a deterrent then an offensive weapon. The .50 cals are pretty effective and the ROF of the german MGs make them about equal in damage per second.




Bamut

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

4th March 2005

0 Uploads

20 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago

My oppinion is that the ironsights sucks. And not because I don`t like ironsights(I really like the idea), but because game developpers can`t figure how a propper and useful ironsight should look like. Ussually the ironsights are big, cumbersome and you can`t shoot accurately at long range targets. Your gun completely covers the target you are shooting at. The ironsights should be very "thin" and I am not sure that BF engine could supports such(thin ones). Crossair must be completely remove for ironsights to take place.




Orange

Conflagrator

50 XP

13th March 2005

0 Uploads

137 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago

I think they're decent as-is, but they aren't often in great positions. Often they're placed uselessly, i.e. facing a wall, or a bush, or the MG just has no useful field of fire. It'd be nice to have more good ones on the older maps. Most of the newest ones seem to have good ones, for the most part. Oh, the DShK, Maxim, and Vickers would be great to have added to the 'static and mounted MGs' category. The DP and M1919A6 should be added as deployable MGs also, but that's another thread, I think.




[21Pz]Stauffenberg

the Wishmaster

50 XP

29th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,040 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago

Btw a very common mg in german planes backseats was the mg82,double barrel::: That would maybe increase the chance of defending a stuka in a realistic way




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago

"but because game developpers can`t figure how a propper and useful ironsight should look like. Your gun completely covers the target you are shooting at." Try the MG42 XWWII sight. I swear it's perfect. Also, it's realistic that a gun is opaque. How about you have a crosshairless MG sight while being "head away" and use nosecam to have a down the sight iron sight?