Project Reality Forums

I think HMGs cannot secure top hills,where tactically better position for them.
It's makes due HMGs tripod(Not gun) don't rotate on Z axis.
If it's possible - Make adjustable Z axis on Tripod,when they deployed by sandbags under tripod.If it's not possible - just make 2 sandbags under rear pod like on my image(Makes when I been dunked )



For example:

url=http://www.xfire.com/profile/parkourman ... #108752637][/url]

Important territory near bridge is not visible.

THAT, is indeed a good suggestion
+5 points for the crudely efficient drawings and presumably involving a small child to help you!

Operator009 wrote:THAT, is indeed a good suggestion
+5 points for the crudely efficient drawings and presumably involving a small child to help you!

As I says - I've been drunked,where i draw it

That's called incrementing view angle.....

haha, would be good......

It would be good yes. Think its been suggested before though....

The point of the limited arc is so that people don't build them on top of buildings or mountains and rain fire from across the map, while also acting as an effective AAMG.

The current version though makes hilltops and strategic positions useless for HMGs though because they can't fire below and take advantage of their height as stated in the OP. I think as long as the MG isn't given more positive angle, adding downwards angle won't hurt.

Dev1200 wrote:The point of the limited arc is so that people don't build them on top of buildings or mountains and rain fire from across the map, while also acting as an effective AAMG.

I don't think they're made either for flat ground firing purpose only, don't you think so?
Anyway, that would be nice, I hate it whenever I build one, and afterwards start to rage because I can't hit somebody/someone who's 1 pixel under the angle barrier

Dev1200 wrote:The point of the limited arc is so that people don't build them on top of buildings or mountains and rain fire from across the map, while also acting as an effective AAMG.

I think your right. but i dont like it. even if people put a HMG on a tree (which i've seen done recently with a recoiless rifle) its down to the skill of the squad leader to place it whereever they deem fit. DEVs should provide the pieces. at this stage they should stop trying to manipulate the players so much.

+1 epic draughsmanship

Dev1200 wrote:The point of the limited arc is so that people don't build them on top of buildings or mountains and rain fire from across the map, while also acting as an effective AAMG.

As I understood it the view angle would be reduced on the upper part when adding view angle to the lower part.
Therefore it would not be able to be used agaist aircraft when built to shoot down.

Im surprised the tripods aren't like the MG42 Lafette tripods
But this is a good idea, since you can't use any high position effectively at all, llets see where's that photo
This isn't the photo i was thinking of, but look at the valley here(its korengal supposedly) I'd probalby only be able to shoot the top set of buildings currently

How would be the recoil like when you put the tripod on sandbag instead of flat ground?

Maybe we could make this as a right-click option when deploying a HMG.

That will probably be for the Mk19/GMG/AGS-30 when/if they are implemented.

Dev1200 wrote:The point of the limited arc is so that people don't build them on top of buildings or mountains and rain fire from across the map, while also acting as an effective AAMG.

but then doesnt that defeat the purpose of fighting for advantageous ground?

solution, we can link it the W/S keys and have it adjust slowly. so you cant one moment be raping ground troops below, then change fire to an incoming chopper.

I don't see how this would have been done so people don't shoot across the map. Shooting at a very large distance requires much less rotation on this axis than shooting at something close to you. As in the pictures in the first post: Shooting from that hill to hit someone far away is already possible, shooting at someone near the hill, however, isn't.

I'd like if this was done, though I believe one of the main reasons it isn't done would be either a realism thing, or that the character animation would look silly.

What realism thing? Since when do armies not position their HMGs on high ground to shoot down on people attacking up the slope?

I meant the specific model not being capable of turning that much or w/e. Was just a wild guess on possible reasons, since the Devs usually are quite accurate with turn radii and such.

Spec_Operator wrote:I don't see how this would have been done so people don't shoot across the map. Shooting at a very large distance requires much less rotation on this axis than shooting at something close to you. As in the pictures in the first post: Shooting from that hill to hit someone far away is already possible, shooting at someone near the hill, however, isn't.

I'd like if this was done, though I believe one of the main reasons it isn't done would be either a realism thing, or that the character animation would look silly.

i dont think they need to worry about character animation looking funky since you're shrouded with a camo net on all sides anyways

Dev1200 wrote:The point of the limited arc is so that people don't build them on top of buildings or mountains and rain fire from across the map, while also acting as an effective AAMG.

The reason HMG's have a limite arc is because they are mounted on a tripod that is capable of a limited movement. For the M2HB mounted to the M3 tripod, the elevation limit is +16/-19, or 16 degrees up and 19 degrees down when not using the T&E. Those are real-world values, I'm not sure myself what the exact in-game values are.

The limited range of elevation/depression in PR has nothing to do with trying to "direct" where players build them, it's simply to simulate an approximate realistic value of what the real tripods are capable of.

chrisweb89 wrote:The current version though makes hilltops and strategic positions useless for HMGs though because they can't fire below and take advantage of their height as stated in the OP. I think as long as the MG isn't given more positive angle, adding downwards angle won't hurt.

If you are unable to position your weapon systems to provide the necessary cover, find another location to set up or find a different way to provide the fire support. You just have to put the puzzle together to make the pieces fit properly.

Psykogundam wrote:I think your right. but i dont like it. even if people put a HMG on a tree (which i've seen done recently with a recoiless rifle) its down to the skill of the squad leader to place it whereever they deem fit. DEVs should provide the pieces. at this stage they should stop trying to manipulate the players so much.

+1 epic draughsmanship

Since when are the PR staff "manipulating" players? They provide assets with the most realistic specs as possible, or at least what is best to ensure proper gameplay balancing. This is a game meant to partially simulate actual combat, and as such players are expected to use some form of semi-realistic tactics.

If a player can't learn to use a weapon system as it was designed to function and employ it in a manner in which it was meant to be employed, then maybe they should go back to playing Pokemon or something.

lucky.BOY wrote:How would be the recoil like when you put the tripod on sandbag instead of flat ground?

Maybe we could make this as a right-click option when deploying a HMG.

Remember that the tripod feet have spade-like cups on the ends that are intended to dig into the ground to limit rearward movement caused by weapon recoil. By attempting to place a sandbag under the feet, those spades are just going to tear holes into the sandbags and cause gradual release of the contents.

When combined with the heavy recoil, and the fact that the bags will likely slide, after a few short bursts the bags will have emptied out completely or to the point where they no longer serve their intended function.

chrisweb89 wrote:What realism thing? Since when do armies not position their HMGs on high ground to shoot down on people attacking up the slope?

Soldiers are well aware of the traverse and elevation limitations of tripod-mounted weapon systems. If you intend to place a weapon position to cover a specific sector, and that weapon system is unable to cover that entire sector for reasons such as limited range of aim, obstacles in the way, or depressions in the ground, we use additional assets. We cover those "dead zones" with obstacles, or use indirect-fire weapons as needed. If the dead zone is close, M67. If it's beyond range, M203. If further than that, mortar.


Players should also be smart enough by now to understand that the fixed-position weapon emplacement such as the HMG bunkers are only capable of providing fire to a limited sector. AT NO TIME should you rely on just an HMG bunker to cover an area, unless there is no chance in hell that the enemy can approach that bunker from another direction. So if you do need to position an HMG atop a hill and the HMG is unable to cover a sector below, supporting weapons should be used to cover that dead zone. If you can't do that, don't set up there. Those who do so and get their bunkers zapped deserve the loss, they asked for it.


Sorry, but the suggestion is not realistic or practical. Learn the limitations of a weapon system, and how to complement it with supporting assets. That's all part of the game soldiers call War.

I would like to see HMG with tripod mount like in spg-9 (player able to turn it 360* degrees).