Wondering the use of machineguns

[bezzi]

Usually top of scorelist with MG and getting lots of team score, also some people are crying about hacking. Just did apartments with 40 kills and 170 points, sometimes its hard map with Mg.

Basically just give covering fire from window and kill 2-5 enemies, then change place or get killed. Hip firing is pretty effective too when changing places but only below 10 metres.

 

[KarmakazeNZ]

MG's are quite useless due to the sheer amount of firepower we already have in the field. Over half the platoon is fitted with sub-machine guns, semi-automatic rifles and assault rifles. Just what do you need mg for in RO2 when all the other classes can do the mg's job better while being more mobile?

157m head shots are easily possible with the SMG's? A semi-auto has nearly 50 rounds before reloading?

Scroll up and look at my screenshot. Notice the enemy's honour level? He had an MkB42. He died just as easily.

 

[Pexisan]

I myself have a few problems with the DP in this game. In RO1, the DP was a great gun. When shooting one round at a time, the gun was like a sniper rifle, way more accurate than normal mosin or k98. In RO2, the DP is way too inaccurate for my taste (can't speak about realism, since never fired the actual weapon). It needs a little tweaking IMO.
What I'd also like to have as an ability for this gun is that you could duck while being deployed. This would make the Mg guys have longer lifespan on the battlefield...

 

[KarmakazeNZ]

Not a question but a consideration... in that position you can be successful with a SMG too...

Head shots from 157m on a guy covered behind a wall and firing over the top? With three shots? Not me. I wouldn't even bother firing and giving away my position. Care to show me some evidence of such skill?

That's not the way LMGs were used. In real life they were the most important weapon of the platoon.. being both attackers or defenders.

I fully agree with paquera: that's the way I use MGs too... Usually you will be out of cap space (no team points) but you still are doing a good job to help your teammates.

The enemy I'm shooting is defending the cap zone my team is about 10m away from assaulting. That kill is me covering the assault. They got up, I fired and killed the guy trying to kill them, the two guys with him ducked, my team knew where they were. I think one was hit with a grenade and the other shot about 10-15 seconds after the screenshot. The cap zone fell without another engagement.

If you can do that from 157m away with an SMG or any other weapon but an MG consistently, then you're a damn good player and I'd like to see it.

-

By the way, I joined the server half way through the first round, and the team was already losing. The second round, as you can see, was a draw. We ran out of time, but allies had more reinforcements. Who says you can't have long drawn out and fairly even battles?

Evidence follows:

Notice that the guy I killed in the other SS is only slightly ahead of me in points, and has one less kill, but is 5th in his team. He is ahead on points because for every team mate of mine he killed that tried to assault the position, he got "in objective" and "from objective" points, while I had to be satisfied with only "in objective" points most of the time.

 

[Rak]

You can also get a headshot with a pistol from 157 meters and post scoreboard showing how l337 your skills are. It doesn't mean anything, just saying

 

[6S.Manu]

You can also get a headshot with a pistol from 157 meters and post scoreboard showing how l337 your skills are. It doesn't mean anything, just saying

 

[Carfax]

Lot of good answers and info here, my main problem with the MG is the suppression effect..i was kinda hoping it would be similar to DH.

In that game if Mg rounds come at you you certainly know it and you get into cover as soon as possible and theres no way your gonna mess about popping up for a rifle shot when theres Mg bullets pinging around you.


What im trying to say is the suppression effect in DH is superior in my opinion of course

 

[Kirq]

I just got the game yesterday and I can't agree that MGs are not effective in RO2. Those are my stats form my third game (ever in RO2). I was playing as a Russian MG operator, I ocupied trench with Maxim at the right flank of Spartanovka engaging incoming germans with fixed Maxim and switching to DP28, when they tried to flank me aproaching from angles beyound Maxim killzone.

http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/578934116967790643/655D5FA3B7DCC86B3E02D1C736D7146B8DD5C066/

 

[6S.Manu]

Lot of good answers and info here, my main problem with the MG is the suppression effect..i was kinda hoping it would be similar to DH.

In that game if Mg rounds come at you you certainly know it and you get into cover as soon as possible and theres no way your gonna mess about popping up for a rifle shot when theres Mg bullets pinging around you.


What im trying to say is the suppression effect in DH is superior in my opinion of course

Hiding between some bushes a MG's operation starts firing against an unaware marching platoon in open field.

Probable effect in Real Life:
More soldiers are hit and fall down, some go prone for cover, other start running to search protection.

Probable effect in RO2:
One or two soldiers are hit deadly and fall down, some are hit but they are uneffected.. anyway all the soldiers (the wounded ones too) point their weapons against the MG guy and kill him.

This is the reason I always search to cover a narrow field of battle when using MGs.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

I don't get all these hate against MGs in RO2. If RO1 players are seriously suggesting that MGs should be relying on suppression effect that the game provides, those players better not come back and ask for realism either because the suppression effect in this game is just not how MGs suppress irl. They do it with threat of actually hitting the targets, not just spraying bullets into the air for some scare.

 

[KarmakazeNZ]

You can also get a headshot with a pistol from 157 meters and post scoreboard showing how l337 your skills are. It doesn't mean anything, just saying

Try it.

Post evidence. Remember to get the kill feed so we can see what score you got. From that we'll be able to determine some of the circumstances of the shot. I told you the circumstances of mine, except I was mistaken about the location. At that point I was covering both the point we held and the point we were assaulting, which was the central point with the fountain. You can see that we are capping it from the indicator down the bottom.

I originally said it was the east end because I could see that too... and the street at the end where all the Germans go sprinting across from their spawn... and the windows of the building they like to camp and snipe out of.

After that screen shot, I moved up to the cap we just took and was covering the next assault when the round ended in a draw, which you can see in the second screenshot. The timer is 0:00, Allies have more than double the reinforcements of the Axis, and they only had 13 left. It was very close. If you look at the scores at the end there, it shows a couple of players getting mass kills in the first round from tanks. That's why we lost the first round.

If you know what to look for, it's all in the screenshots.

 

[KarmakazeNZ]

What im trying to say is the suppression effect in DH is superior in my opinion of course

The thing is, in the real world, there is no such effect. You get a psychological effect of them not wanting to move or shoot because they will die. That doesn't mean that if they move, you shouldn't have to kill them.

You are meant to be trying to kill them every time you see them, but you can't possibly see them properly if you are firing like a madman. Even with zero recoil the flash and dust from your shots would obscure your vision and not allow you to adjust your fire. In that case it's safer for the guy to move and spend less time under direct fire. His chances are better. You are relying on a lucky shot, but are not able to prevent him from changing the odds.

The "suppression" effect is utterly fake and is only encouraging bad habits while helping the enemy to defeat the gun. There should be no more effect than temporary deafness.

 

[KarmakazeNZ]

I ocupied trench with Maxim at the right flank of Spartanovka engaging incoming germans with fixed Maxim and switching to DP28, when they tried to flank me aproaching from angles beyound Maxim killzone.

Nice!

I've never tried using the heavy like that, but I do use it as a sort of cammo. I'll deploy prone beside it and shoot from the general location of the fixed gun. From the enemy's perspective, if they aren't really thinking and don't notice the difference in sound, their map knowledge works against them.

They start shooting at the place the fixed gunner would be, and because I am pretty much in the same place but safe, I can easily see and target the muzzle flashes aiming at it.

Lot's of fun

Punishing cocky snipers for MG hunting is a guilty pleasure of mine.

 

[KarmakazeNZ]

This is the reason I always search to cover a narrow field of battle when using MGs.

The reason is that the gunner in question is usually not in a location the gunner in question in the real world would be. He will be too close and too exposed and firing too wildly.

 

[u-s-f]

I have no problems playing the MG, even it is harder to play than (for example) an assault trooper... and of course you will be shot down easier.
The matter of fact is, that for success, a player for a MG must be more experienced and that he must be a special type of player.
But this is is absolutely normal when you compare with reality.

The MG is well designed in RO2, perhaps the accuracy with the first bullet and the first salvo of three bullets could be much better and the general facts 'firing from the shoulder during standing' and positioning / emplacing the weapon behind sandbags, windows, walls, and so on. (I had the possibilty to shoot with the historic MG 34 and MG42 and of course our weapon the German MG3, served as German paratrooper 'Unteroffizier').

For the game the question might be, if we would like a balanced weapon for easy playing or if we would like reality as best as possible.

Therefore to all people who are a bit disappointed, keep in mind:

1. The MG is a 'supporting weapon' and a 'distance weapon'.
a) It is used during an attack to flank the battlefield from one side to support the attacking squads or in positions to support a break through. It is unusual, that an MG is leading an attack in front of the troops. When changing position the MG is secured.
b) In defence it is also used as a flanking weapon and is of course the main defence weapon of squad or platoon. Fighting in urban the MG is used, to secure streets or strategic points.

2. 80 to 90% of the firepower of an group comes from the MG (in the German Infantry every group has an MG, in some armies, there is/ are only one two or MGs per platoon) . Therefore the enemy tries to shoot down the MG-gunner first, that means MG-gunner lives shorter.

3. In reality there are two sometimes three MG-gunner (called MG1, MG2, MG3 in the German Army), organized as MG-Squad. MG1 uses/ shoots the MG, MG2's job is (sometimes additional MG3) has to secure, to recon and to support MG1.
(A single MG-Gunner is very vulnerable.)



When we regard this, you can see that the problem is not the design of the MG in the game, the problem is how it is used.
For this case the main problem of the MG-gunner is, that he fights alone, with no MG2 or MG3 and that less experienced players try to go in close-combat. This must fail.
At least, the type of player for MG is more the 'concentrated camper' (not the player who prefers to jump, shoot around, looking for a quick shot).

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't get all these hate against MGs in RO2. If RO1 players are seriously suggesting that MGs should be relying on suppression effect that the game provides, those players better not come back and ask for realism either because the suppression effect in this game is just not how MGs suppress irl. They do it with threat of actually hitting the targets, not just spraying bullets into the air for some scare.

Actually, the sound of a machine gun being fired in a soldier's general direction was/is scare enough. There are endless accounts of large units being held up by a single MG position (or sniper position). My father's unit in Vietnam (101 AB 1969/70) wiped put an entire hill with "suppressive" artillery fire when confronted by a single MG position rather than storming it Rambo style. Suppression fire by it's very nature is aimed in the general area where enemy forces are thought to be or may be, rather than aimed at individuals. In a battlefield like Stalingrad, there wouldn't be a scene like we see in RO:OST of men in ones and twos constantly charging towards the enemy or sniping from cover in the midst of bullets peppering the ground around them. Things like unit cohesion and suppression fire reign. RO still does a better job than most games at forcing slightly more believable tactics onto players, but real combat is a far, far slower and ponderous affair. Un-aimed vs. aimed fire is a scale where un-aimed is vastly more prevalent.

 

[u-s-e-r]

Gah. You still don't get it. You are expecting VISUAL EFFECTS, not PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS.

BULLET CRACKS are VISUAL? You need to check your BRAIN since it cant differentiate between LIGHT and SOUND.

And anyway, I dont fear death in games, RO2 just doesnt have the feeling that you NEED to get down and cover, unlike DH. BULLET CRACKS which are AUDIO and the suppression effects in DH were great.

I want at least bullet cracks, I know I'm not the only one.

 

[TrenchBroom]

I don't get all these hate against MGs in RO2. If RO1 players are seriously suggesting that MGs should be relying on suppression effect that the game provides, those players better not come back and ask for realism either because the suppression effect in this game is just not how MGs suppress irl. They do it with threat of actually hitting the targets, not just spraying bullets into the air for some scare.

It's no use quoting real life in this matter, because a game can never get the real psychological effects of suppressive fire transmitted to the player by just relying on him to react to them without any real in-game effects, because he is never really in any real danger, i.e. he can just respawn if he gets hit. This is why we need to have something "artificial" in the game, to simulate this real life effect of fearing for your life once the bullets start zipping by you. IMO, you cannot rely on people to just "role-play" the suppression effect, you need to have some in-game effect to simulate real life suppression and to that end combat better (as funny as that sounds).

Also, I don't think people want to get stronger suppression effect by just firing the MG in the air, somewhere in the general direction of enemies. Instead they want to get a more potent suppression effect in the game when bullets are flying really close by to enemies. At least I do. As it is now, the game effect is quite minor and you recover from it very fast. This makes MG suppressive fire nearly useless, unfortunately. The in-game effect, which simulates real life suppression, needs to be more severe and longer lasting. (IMHO, of course.)

 

[weasel]

Avoid playing mg on a server with kill cam.

 

[DeltaElite121]

Avoid playing mg on a server with kill cam.

Killcam in general should be avoided.