Strengthenings near the bunker and FB

[Saito]

All greetings I rather badly know English so I ask applications for some discrepancies of transfer.

I play a server Russian reality where that year and I very much liked idea of stationary strengthenings in PR But I consider that it would be more logical a few than them to improve.

Namely to add new bags with sand which allowed infantry to fire from relative safety to make embrasures. Or simply to change their form to a semicircle or a square without one wall.

To make stationary machine guns or more long-range are heavy, to add optics, or stronger.

And the last would be would be desirable that possibility to erect at least on two stationary Anti-tank of a point near FB or the bunker.

It would be interesting to learn to reflect founders PR over input in game are easy stationary grenade cup discharges.

Thanks that have fished time to my post I wait for answers and comments.

[DankE_SPB]

changes in this way will make FB overpowered imho and the gameplay will turn into WW1, with positions war and camping

[Saito]

Understand me correctly, I not a pretext to rummage all card and to make that that on similarity of a front line
Simply if to enter similar changes that to appear possibility to be fixed on advantage-grounds (heights). It will promote coordination of work of the contradictory parties and will give new possibilities to commanders and Sl + such strengthenings will provoke players to use of fire support (artillery) that we see seldom enough.

[Drav]

I think Saito has a point.

Sandbags I definitely think need to be more useful. One of the things I'd like to see is for HMG placements to be a little higher off the ground, and have a bigger traverse.

Stationary AT probably would be overkill, but maybe deployable mortars?

[Rudd]

Mortar range is too long to make sense on FBs

if a 40mm grenade launcher was ever put in to PR, i'd like that to be at a FB

[DankE_SPB]

i agree with you about HMG, higher+wider vertical angle(horizont is good for me)
sandbags should be changed too, but it shouldnt convert into serious fortifications, just imagine FB somewhere in city at Ejod Desers with 2 upgraded HMG+HAT and full set of wire+upgraded(like in 1st post) sands and its all at 1 flag

will provoke players to use of fire support (artillery)

its able only once(or twice?) per hour, while you can build 4 FB whenever you like
so imo little upgrade to HMG and sanbags would be great
about the AT, i think its needed, but with power of LAT not HAT, but some more rounds+higher rate of fire. And, of course, limit assets(i.e. 1 HMG+LAT, or 2 same)
sry for my english

[Drav]

Mortar range is too long to make sense on FBs

if a 40mm grenade launcher was ever put in to PR, i'd like that to be at a FB

51mm mortar effective range is about 750m. In itself I wouldnt say thats too far on 4km maps....

I also think if you want realism, PR is missing indirect fire support in a big way, with really only the grenadier kit approximating this. But....

Seeing as its not much fun getting mortared or mk-19d whenever you come across the enemy I understand why there is little indirect fire in PR. I'd rather have fun than get repeatedly owned by artillery in a realistic manner.

Point taken...

[TAW_Cutthroat]

You know if you could make 1 TOW instead of the 2 HMG positions on maps like kashan it would be pretty cool.

[Jordanb716]

maybe a choice of like:
2 HMGs or
1 HMG and 1 AA or
1 HMG and 1 AT or
1 AA and 1 AT
that way squads can mix it up to suit the current situation and would still have to leave at least one weakness. (if nothing else HMGs can only face one direction.)