masterceo wrote:how is suggesting something you already know that's unrealistic supposed to improve the reality side of the mod?
That is exactly the same that came to my mind.
masterceo wrote:Anyway, welcome to the forums, just a tip for the future: the DEV team doesn't take weapon suggestions, because they have their own military advisers which are more aware of the loadout carried by troops. It is their job to point out any inaccuracies.
And second that one.
Also there is a reason why the suggestions forum is locked right now and locked for people with a low post-count. Simply suggesting in the General Forum will not get your suggestion any boost, but one in the wrong direction mate. Also there wouldn't be ANY difference, but a visual one if you would exchange the M249 with a Para one (Also isn't there a Para one right now? I'm not sure since most of the time I end up on the Opfor or as a simple Rifleman.) And for the M4A1... Why exactly do you want it ingame? If you are engaging targets beyond 30 meters you have to fire single rounds or you WILL miss and if you are in CQB a well aimed burst of three rounds will put your target down. A full-auto would only get you running between the frontline and the supplycrates more often since I guess no Rifleman would deliver his ammobag to you then. Not to speak about the M16A2 which is mostly replaced by the A4 AFAIK (and also I trust in the almighty DEVs and MAs).
So why exactly did you want to suggest this?

:
It wouldn't really change gameplay. Maybe it would add a LITTLE bit more CQB capabilities for US Forces, but they are at least equal to their opponents right now, so there would only be a few visual changes which would require a lot of work and also it would make the mod more unrealistic while you try to "make PR more realistic"...
