Realistic MGs were strongpoints that were supposed to block the enemy in obvious spots. The MGs at the beaches of normandy were mostls in bunkers or fox holes that allowed a view of the area and they were very easy to spot and sitting in obvious places.
Do you know the difference between defence and offence? Do you know the difference between a heavy support MG and a squad automatic weapon/light machine gun? It seems not.
You are talking about only ONE small aspect of machine gun employment, and it is not even the aspect that we as players ever actually use, except one specific way - the fixed MG's mounted on tripods. THOSE are heavy machine guns being used for supporting fire.
What you are running around with is a light machine gun used to provide more firepower for an infantry unit. It's not used the way you seem to think. If you try to set up somewhere and dominate an area, unless you are so damn good that you never miss, even when widely separated enemies are all shooting at you, then you will die, rapidly and often. Even if you are good enough to shoot every person you can see before they can shoot you, sooner or later arty or a nade will end your run.
In this game, and every FPS actually, you are NOT a heavy support MG. You are a squad automatic weapon that is meant to move with and closely cover the rest of your unit. If you set up somewhere for more than a minute or two, then you are no longer covering your unit because they have moved on or are dead. That means you did NOT do you job, no matter how many enemy you killed.
The same goes for defensive stances. Being stationary is a death sentence. You must keep moving. Never firing from one place for more than a few bursts because if you have set yourself up somewhere where you can shoot people, then you can be shot, and there is always someone you didn't see. The key is to never let the enemy know where you are, unless they are about to die. Once they know where you are (because you fired, or someone spotted you) displace or die. It's that simple.
MGs should not have to hide from a few riflemen.
Yes, they should. Do you know why every man in an infantry platoon is taught to use and be proficient with the MG? Because gunners die. They are the prime target on the battlefield, even more so than officers, because they are killing machines.
Here is why in the real world MG's need to hide just like they do in this game: The proper way for riflemen to deal with an MG is to disperse widely. Then, when the gun starts firing at someone, everyone else pops up and takes a shot. When the gun moves to another person, they stop shooting and every one else takes a shot. and so on. The MG is always shooting at someone who is hiding (and suppressed), while everyone else is shooting at the MG. Sooner or later the MG loses.
That is why you don't stay in one place for too long. Once the riflemen have you pinpointed, they can use this method to kill you quickly and easily. By moving around after every few bursts, maybe 5 or so metres at a time, you make it harder for those popup riflemen to kill you because they always have to keep finding your new position, and they do it by having one or more of them die.
And RO1 had it working well. MGs dominated open spaces even though they were not well hidden because standing riflemen could not simply shoot them unsupported after stopping fo a second.
If there are standing riflemen able to shoot you, and you die, it's NOT because they were able to stop and get a shot... it's because you didn't kill them. Why not? It's EASY to kill a standing man in the open with an MG. How bad are you with the gun? No wonder you die so much.
That is why the game "suppression" effect is dumb and should be removed. It teaches bad machine gun habits. You NEVER shoot to miss. Nothing is more "suppressed" than "dead". If you are not able to easily kill anything that is capable of aiming at you and taking a shot, then you are in the wrong place. You need to find cover that provides a narrower field of view but more protection from enemy who aren't directly in front of your gun. Get behind a hole some distance, and move side to side to aim, rather than hiding at the hole where everyone from one side of the battlefield to the other can see you. That is how you stay alive.
As for the zoom.
I can judge distance really well in RO2. And zoom is not a good solution.
You can? Without the shift-zoom? Then you must suck at judging distance in real life because the in-game view is wrong. Real human eyes have a higher level of zoom than that. In fact, it's about the same level as the shift-zoom feature.. Which isn't a surprise seeing as that is exactly why it is there. Most people miss because they think people are further away than they are, and if they are adjusting for the fall of shot, will shoot too high.
See why shift-zoom is important on a realistic game with realistic ballistics? Without realistic vision, everything gets screwed up.
Depth of field blur would be a good one. Becuase all that happens if you focus your eyes on something in the distance is that your eyes adjust the contrast on a far spot.
See, you are criticising something you don't even understand. You think the "realistic eyes" are being zoomed in to become "unrealistic eyes". The FACT is that is totally the OPPOSITE of what is happening. When you are running around at the normal game zoom, you have UNREALISTIC level of zoom. only by shift-zooming do you get a REALISTIC zoom level.
It has nothing at all to do with focus or the eyes zooming when you aim or any of that crap. Nothing at all. The normal FOV is too wide to give the proper zoom level, so when you hold shift they narrow the field of view to give you the realistic zoom level. It's that simple.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. You can't seem to separate "reality" from "how other games do it". You don't even know what the features you are criticising are for or why they are there. You clearly don't know correct small unit tactics, and have no idea at all about what a machine gun is and what it is for.
Maybe you should go and do some reading before you try to argue with people about stuff you clearly do not understand.
And about the whole blitzkrieg argument. It fails.
As if you could tell.
The term described mobile tank warfare and was a strategic doctrine.
Yes, it was. It was an example of manoeuvre warfare, which is a way of fighting a war by using rapid movement to confuse the enemy and keep him unbalanced and unprepared for what is happening.
You do realise that the definition has nothing to do with the size of the unit or units involved nor the weapons they are carrying, right? When the SAS stormed the Iranian Embassy, they used the exact same strategy. By attacking from multiple points simultaneously, and rapidly moving through the building without stopping, they made sure the terrorists were so confused as to what was happening, they didn't even have a chance to kill the hostages.
The concept is exactly the same as using rapid tank thrusts to burst through enemy lines and rapidly fan out in his rear, disrupting his movements and causing massive confusion. What you are doing is the same, how you are doing it is different.
It's pretty straight forward. Armchair generals usually think strategy is the "big plan" and tactics are the "small plan". They are wrong. Strategy is the plan, tactics are the method.
Even a single soldier has a strategy to follow. He might be part of a unit that is doing nothing more than acting as a distraction, but his tactics would be the same as if he was in the final assault. Strategy and tactics are two different things, not the same thing on different scales.
10kg machine guns with supporing guys and ammo to carry, did not run from cover to cover.
Really? Do you know why they invented the bipod? The tripod is a much better system for providing long range sustained fire, so why use a bipod? Because they are light enough to run from cover to cover with when assaulting a position, and requiring minimal setup, while still providing a stable firing platform. Who would have thunk it?
They were usually well dug and fired from those positions.
See? No idea at all. You still can't tell the difference between a machine gun mounted on a heavy tripod with telescopic sights in fortified emplacments, and a machine gun with a bipod and iron sights carried by a soldier into battle.
They are two TOTALLY different roles. In game language, they are as different a class from the MG we play with as the sniper rifle is different from the normal rifle. Maybe that will help you to understand, seeing as your knowledge appears to come solely from gaming,
And in case you did not notice yet, you basically descrive how MG players in RO2 have to adapt into playing like a sniper to actually survive combat, and that is not what an MG is about.
Bahahah even YOU can see what you are describing is a different class of MG.
![[TORO]Patosentado](/data/avatars/s/35/35970.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
![[SP]Alfonso](/data/avatars/s/13/13032.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
