Make the MMG only require 3 squad members

[Firepower01]

The MMG is a weapon that's designed for longer range engagements and squad support. However I frequently see this kit being overlooked in favor of the lighter LMG, which has a scope on it and therefor can be used more effectively at longer range engagements if working alone or in a mobile infantry squad.

Personally I think this kit would be much better suited to small specialized squads, similar to how the HAT and AA kits can both be requested by 3 man squads I believe the MMG should also have that privilege. You could have a small squad dedicated to long range fire support, and have members of that squad help spot rounds for the machine gunner using binoculars. In a traditional infantry squad individual members are more worried about fulfilling their individual roles rather than helping squad members accomplish theirs better. But a small "weapons det" type squad could really make the MMG kit shine and highlight the differences between that kit and a regular AR.

[2akurate]

I like this line of thinking, but I wanna take it a little further, what if you could substitute the gun for this



One person would carry the tripod and ammo and the other would carry the 50. They would have to assemble the thing for a few seconds so it cannot be used in attacks but rather has to rely on positioning. I think a mobile 50cal would be tactically very interesting AND it would give teams a big incentive to use this kind of play. The 50 also has a little "zoom" so its better than the MMG except in mobility. This kit would have to be limited.

Why create a less mobile kit like this if you have a 50 mounted on a Humvee though? We'll one advantage is the fact that its silent, nobody hears you coming, you could set this baby up in a bush and wreak havoc.

Just an idea, might not work in game as I imagine it.

[Mineral]

2akurate, your idea is re-suggestion and has no real proper way of being implemented without some complications.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... un-10.html

[2akurate]

Ah yes, lot's of trouble implementing and the sudden death thing isn't appealing either. I guess not a very good idea, maybe in a different engine it would work. However the effect on the gameplay itself could be negative. Anyway good thinking exercise.

[gamma_gandalph]

Hm, this has probably been brought up already, but why can't a deployable machine gun be implemented just like the deployable assets for the Squad Leader? Give the machine gunner kit a special shovel whith which he can deploy basically the same thing as the current HMG emplacement, sans the sandbags. Or is that mechanic irreversibly dependent on the squad leader position?

But as for the OP's suggestion, it is a nice idea, but I don't think it'd work out too well. To enforce this, servers would have to make the HMG squad a claimable asset, which means more work enforcing rules for admins. Otherwise, I don't foresee a big change with doing this, someone will just either take it in a normal squad or, worse, someone takes it as a lone wolf. We'd need a much stronger focus on inter squad teamplay for this to work effectively, like two squads moving on the target while the small weapons det provides cover. Teamwork like this does happen, but in my experience it is rather rare to have more than two infantry squads willing to closely work together.

[Murphy]

Having the weapon "deploy" would be fraught with bugs and awkwardly implemented because coding how the weapon interacts with the world around it is no simple task. What you have written has basically been suggested and shot down in a rather long thread that ultimately ends with "too buggy, too much effort for too little return", and that was a number of years ago if I'm not mistaken.

Servers do not make kits claimable, and any server that does is just retarded. I think the MMG kit should retain it's current restriction at 6 players in the squad because it is a support weapon and who are you supporting in a 3 man squad? The other 2 guys? If anything make the AR available at lower numbers and have the MMG (which is a larger, often more capable weapon) reserved for the large squads that could actually use 2 MGs properly.

[Firepower01]

Having the weapon "deploy" would be fraught with bugs and awkwardly implemented because coding how the weapon interacts with the world around it is no simple task. What you have written has basically been suggested and shot down in a rather long thread that ultimately ends with "too buggy, too much effort for too little return", and that was a number of years ago if I'm not mistaken.

Servers do not make kits claimable, and any server that does is just retarded. I think the MMG kit should retain it's current restriction at 6 players in the squad because it is a support weapon and who are you supporting in a 3 man squad? The other 2 guys? If anything make the AR available at lower numbers and have the MMG (which is a larger, often more capable weapon) reserved for the large squads that could actually use 2 MGs properly.

The idea would be that the weapons squad would be support other squads with accurate long range machine gun fire as they advance. The whole point of making the MMG more available than the AR is it requires (generally) more coordination to use effectively. Seeing as a lot of nations don't put optics on their MMGs you'd probably need to operate with a spotter for accurate fire.

[Frontliner]

The idea would be that the weapons squad would be support other squads with accurate long range machine gun fire as they advance.

Sounds just like the US Army's Infantry doctrine during WW2. Outdated and not in use any longer, not to mention that an/a APC/IFV/Tank or CAS would be way better in terms of supporting advancing troops than a separate weapons team.

The whole point of making the MMG more available than the AR is it requires (generally) more coordination to use effectively. Seeing as a lot of nations don't put optics on their MMGs you'd probably need to operate with a spotter for accurate fire.

I cannot account for the armies of other nations, but the point of the MG3 in the Bundeswehr is to provide(rather accurate I must say) covering fire. I'm with you that this doesn't work very well currently in the game because of the lack of fear of death, which makes suppression fire rather pointless, but as long as the devs don't give those MMGs without a scope a fake zoom to make them better at long range combat, I'm afraid we'll see little change in how they are currently played(if at all).

[Firepower01]

Sounds just like the US Army's Infantry doctrine during WW2. Outdated and not in use any longer, not to mention that an/a APC/IFV/Tank or CAS would be way better in terms of supporting advancing troops than a separate weapons team.



I cannot account for the armies of other nations, but the point of the MG3 in the Bundeswehr is to provide(rather accurate I must say) covering fire. I'm with you that this doesn't work very well currently in the game because of the lack of fear of death, which makes suppression fire rather pointless, but as long as the devs don't give those MMGs without a scope a fake zoom to make them better at long range combat, I'm afraid we'll see little change in how they are currently played(if at all).

Well I don't know about other militaries but as for the Canadian Forces they have small "weapons detachment" sections which generally operate the heavier infantry weapons such as the C6 GPMG and the Carl Gustav. The entire point of the weapons det is to provide covering suppressive fire for the infantry sections as they advance. So the tactic of using machine guns for long range fire isn't obsolete, not by a long shot.

As for suppressive fire not working in PR, well I honestly disagree with that. Shoot at anyone out in the open and you'll see them scramble for cover to avoid being shot, people fear death in PR... Just not as much as they would in reality.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that this suggestion doesn't prevent the MMG from being used by full 8 man squads, it just allows it to be used by smaller specialized squads.

[Murphy]

Edit: I'd also like to point out that this suggestion doesn't prevent the MMG from being used by full 8 man squads, it just allows it to be used by smaller specialized squads.

There is a global limit to how many MMG kits a team may field, for every 3 man squad that gets an MMG one full squad will be left without the option.

[matty1053]

i think PR's playercounts on servers is too small for 'required amount' of players for what ever......


PR2, looking as it's going to have a ton of players on one server, would be appropriate for this...


But that is my 2 cents.

[Murphy]

It would be nice to have a squad composition exactly as an SL wants it every time but I think it adds to the meta game (at least in a competitive environment, maybe not so much in public games).

[X-Alt]

About the HMG, a right click could deploy something similar looking to the one seen on FOBs without a crate, but can only be operated by the "HMG Gunner" kit, and a rifleman would be needed to rearm it?

[Firepower01]

There is a global limit to how many MMG kits a team may field, for every 3 man squad that gets an MMG one full squad will be left without the option.

Which wouldn't be a problem at all considering most of the time the MMG kits go unused anyway.

[40mmrain]

MMG has no useful special operations tactics. It's loud, requires continous fire and has big bright tracers. If you're actually thinking of using it as a pseudo sniper you're a complete waste of manpower. Players choosing ARs over MMGs is player ignorance. The MMG has way higher damage/bullet, and far lesser minimum deviation and has a lower deviation growth rate making it a way better weapon at distance. OR at least it should. No game change will solve that.

It would be nice to have a squad composition exactly as an SL wants it every time but I think it adds to the meta game (at least in a competitive environment, maybe not so much in public games).

You're onto something here. A alternative competitive ruleset AAS with unrestricted kit requests among other conventions of the game meant to corral public players would be interesting. Maybe a thread for that is in order. But not for public games, preventing players from acting against the design doctrine of the game is important in building a good game.

[Murphy]

preventing players from acting against the design doctrine of the game is important in building a good game.

We're quite the hardcoded bunch, aren't we. It would be cool to have the overall kit restrictions varied depending on the gaming environment but there is always someone who will eventually sour the batch. It would take a fair bit of consideration though, and it would directly impact the asset gameplay. Added or removing AT kits could have horrendous consequences, as seen in previous iterations of PR in which the AT kits were absent for certain factions. There was also a time where HAT kits could be abused and one could effectively use an enemy kit as their own and it was hard times for any Armour crews knowing the enemy team had up to 4 HAT kits somewhere in the hills.

This same train of thought can be applied to the more powerful anti-infantry kits (sniper/ar/mmg/marksmen/grenadier) when balancing against spawn points and logistical considerations.

[Firepower01]

MMG has no useful special operations tactics. It's loud, requires continous fire and has big bright tracers. If you're actually thinking of using it as a pseudo sniper you're a complete waste of manpower. Players choosing ARs over MMGs is player ignorance. The MMG has way higher damage/bullet, and far lesser minimum deviation and has a lower deviation growth rate making it a way better weapon at distance. OR at least it should. No game change will solve that.

When did I once suggest it would be used for "special operations" or allude to it being used in some sort of stealth role? The fact of the matter is the MMG is overlooked often times because many nations do not field their MMGs with optics on it, thus making it less useful than an AR to an individual squad member.

You yourself even admit that the MMG is a better weapon at a distance when compared to the AR, yet you also state that using it as a pseudo sniper is a complete waste of manpower (though I never suggested it would be used for sniping either). I'm merely suggesting allowing the MMG to be used in small dedicated machine gun teams so they can support other squads with accurate suppressive fire. And considering many nations don't field their MMGs with optics a spotter for said machine gun would most likely be necessary.

Platoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'll see in the first paragraph of that article that the Canadian Forces utilizes a weapons detachment as part of an infantry platoon. Inside that weapons detachment soldiers are often equipped with GPMGs and Carl Gustavs (not in PR unfortunately). So my suggestion of dedicated MG teams isn't unrealistic by any means.

[40mmrain]

Sorry but platoons are way too big to be trying to shove into this game's design. If you're suggesting that it's viable to act as an independent 3 man team with MMG, which could only be some sort of special operations tactics, then you're wrong. You would have to act under the orders of a squad leader to be effective. If you're suggesting that a 3 man fireteam should work alongside other infantry squads only then you should be suggesting infantry squad size inflation. If the game is large enough for 10-11 man infantry units to be viable, then taking up 2 of the squad slots for ust 1 infantry unit would leave too few squad slots available for others.

Anyways, what's strangest to me abut your suggestion is that you want to be part of an infantry squad as a different squad. Why not just put the MMG in the 8 man squad and then the supplementary medics and riflemen in the secondary 3 man squad? Then just take the 10-11 men and use them as you see fit tactically.

I don't see any point in an idependent MMG squad, it wuld be an even lesser version of using a light transport vehicle as infantry support and even those are always fully integrated with infantry squads. Some even argue that lighter APCs should ever be used integrally with infantry. Why then should an MMG squad be useful independently? Being so small, underarmed, loud and britht they're easy targets if in any kind of dangerous territory, and supporting friendlies from behind an advance would be best being a part of that squad. So if you want the MMG to be useful for support, increase squad size.

[Firepower01]

Well a platoon is about the same size as a team on PR so we've already managed to work platoon sized forces into PR. Infantry squads don't need to be larger, 8 man squads are sufficient considering that's about the realistic side an infantry section would be.

Again I don't know where you keep getting this idea that I'm trying to suggest using an MMG for "special operation tactics" in your words. I obviously don't expect a 3 man team to be able to take objectives by themselves, but PR isn't a game about individuals it's about entire teams working together. And a dedicated machine gun squad working as a base of fire can be very effective at suppressing enemies so other squads can assault them without worrying about being cut down during their advance, that's honestly basic infantry tactics right there.

As for your idea that APCs can just be used for squad support, well yes they can. But in many ways APCs are more vulnerable than infantry squads. I think that alone is obvious to anyone who's played PR for any significant amount of time. You seem to be operating under the assumption that a machine gun team would be working alone, when that really just is not the case at all. But even then I can think of situations where an MMG would be useful operating alone, that doesn't mean it's ideal though.

[40mmrain]

Right this is blatant miscommunication. Clearly your idea is to use a 3 man MMG team as some sort of independent and supportive element, because as of now squads are too small for effective MMG use. IF that's a misinterpretation stop me now.

What I am asserting is that an independent MMG team is not a good idea and should not be supported by the game. Sniper teams, are supposed to act as a independent fire support, interdiction and recon element, and I've actually done this successfully in PR. This is the "special operations" tactic I refer to, it is using concealment and range to let a small team of 2-3 infantry successfully attack, disrupt or survey larger infantry forces. This is the only way a small infantry force can be effective in a game where infantry groups are 8+ men. Whoever has a greater sized infantry force in an engagement wins the large majority of the time in a conventional engagement. This is why I am saying that an independent 3 man MMG section makes no sense. A 3 man MMG team attacking infantry on their own, probably full infantry squads would be a waste of time and tickets, they are so loud and bright that they're easily found and overwhelmed because they have little firepower advantage, if not a disadvantage due to small size. The only time it would be pointful to attack enemy infantry as a small MMG section is when you are supporting friendly infantry as they advance or attack the infantry you are shooting at. Now clearly this is your idea, however, the solution to this is not making small sections with MMGs possible as this encourages the players to operate in the way I have described as stupid and pointless.

MMG fire should always be from behind friendly lines, as a defending weapon or an attacking weapon in support of friendly infantry. Because of its supportive nature for friendly infantry it should be under the command of infantry squad leaders that are being supported by it, and not its own squad. So, if you want to have an infantry element that exceeds 8 men and has a medium machine gun, simply make two squads, and have a member of the 8 man infantry squad take the GPMG, and then in the second squad the medic, spotter or riflemen that will work with this GPMG user. Then have those two squads work as one under the single squad leader.

That or ask for squad size to increase so proper GPMG use can be implemented without awkward arrangements such as that.

So in summation I am against a 3 man squad being able to request a GPMG kit because this would encourage incorrect usage of the kit while a larger squad possible size would encourage proper use.