[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:Keeping Russia and the Chechen Forces in mind, I don't believe that the PKM or Pechneg mg's can mount ACOG equivalent optics. Also bare in mind that the HK21 w/hendsolt optics would be a total rape mobile (900rpm of 7.62x51mm
Well giving all factions a pair of magnified GPMG kits would make it fairly balanced. If the weight and number of rounds carried with the HK-21 was modeled accurately against the 5.56 variants, it wouldn't be an issue.
---------------
Hypothetically:
(All shoot trace).
M249: larger number of rounds, soldier has more stamina.
M240 1800m range can't sprint
vs
HK-21 heavier round, more damage, less mobility, less ammo.
PKM 1000m range, can't sprint
---------------
If you make MG's as integral as they are in reality (seriously, name one weapon that wasn't developed as a result of the stalemate in WWI, or was a response to another one that was), then people start using and thinking about words like "beaten zone" and "defilade", and less about "rally points" and "deviation". I'll say that this deliberate push to make players use rifleman kits has mostly backfired.
See when everybody is using a magnified, semiautomatic weapon meant to engage point targets, you aren't going to have the much vaunted but seemingly misunderstood "fire and maneuver" engagements that PR seems to be after.
PR is EXACTLY how a real war would play out with people getting picked off and diving all over the place, with similar weapons and environments. Players disperse and run around constantly looking for exposed enemies (normally called lonewolfing),
because it makes sense. What do you think the Vietcong did to the US for years and years in the jungle?
With a low view distance on most maps, and the fact that most support weapons pose little to no threat, its impossible for the large unit tactics that are so often proposed to actually happen. Riflemen CANNOT control large swaths of open ground, or generate the volume of fire that is required to gain fire superiority over pretty much anything, and for good reason. Their job is to envelope or assault suppressed positions.
This is why you see the most success in PR when you are with a small group of good players, or by yourself armed with a combat sight. Because MG's have shorter range, and therefore rifle's are left with the task of controlling wide arcs (which pretty much always fails always), most intelligent people will just disperse and run around. But it also has another impact, it makes the enemy not so much an opponent, but an obstacle. You just run forward to the flag until something someone misses you allowing you a few seconds to try and shoot at their exposed backs. Unless squads have access to long range suppression weapons to control large volumes of ground, then there is no practical advantage in "squadding up".
Funnily enough, players who attempt to play with military tactics, either by using a base of fire (usually the unfortunate gunner getting headshawt), or staying in close proximity attempting to suppress (which works great for the first 30 rounds, or the enemy gets bored and shoots you in the head) are usually incapable of doing so. So the term "Squad play" has a sort of tongue-in-cheek irony to it because playing in a large group is completely counter intuitive to both your environment and armament. I am quoting TF21 and PRT players here.
^By not adding + augmenting support weapons, the players who want to play with semi realistic tactics are at a disadvantage and get pissed off.
Maybe its because of Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, where you see guys charge trenches through a cloud of fire (if you pay attention to BOB you'll hear basic machine gun theory explained) , or the marksman pick off the MG42 gunner, but it seems that the concept of a base of fire has eluded the general public. (most people forget the couple hundred soldiers that got mowed down by said MG42 on the initial landing but I digress.)
On a related note, if squad leaders had access to mortars or howitzers, GPMGs wouldn't be overpowered. Because squad leaders need a choice other than "pop smoke and fix bayonets". Indirect fire would be a realistic response to fire from an MG position (See Operation Anaconda).
) so just chill, ignore it and take the constructive bits from their post and if there isn't any, just completely ignore all of it 
Makes everyone's day nicer if we don't have stupid **** happening on the internet where we want to relax