How to balance MGs and make them overall more desirable class.

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

CaptHawkeye

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 23, 2009
131
93
0
Well "accurate fire" for a machine gun is different then for a rifle. Machine guns fire full size rifle rounds and fire them from weapon sporting a long barrel. They *can* fire single shots as accurately as any rifle, but if that was all one needed it for, their would be no point in its existence. The value of an MG is that it saturates an area with fire. Taking individual marksmanship out of the equation (or at least softening its requirement) and replacing it with raw firepower.

It's sort of the same thing as canister or grape shot, but it can be projected at great distance. Less reliance on someone being a good shot. It's just that people tend to think they don't need *any* skill to use it.

LMGs exist because most heavier guns are not convenient for assaulting a position. They're too bulky and heavy for a situation that requires the flexibility of a rifleman. However sustainable automatic fire is valuable at any range especially from a weapon firing rifle rounds. This is an era where most guys don't even have semi automatic rifles. This is where you start to head into the category of "automatic rifle" which can be difficult to distinguish at times from LMG.
 
Last edited:

Inuki

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 11, 2011
204
105
0
Designed for supression:

Vickers.jpg


Designed to kill:

bren_mk1-2.jpg


Designed for suppression:

M1917A1.jpg


Designed to Kill:

bar-mast.jpg


Designed for Suppression:

SG43.jpg


Designed to Kill:

DP28.jpg


Designed for Supression:

MG42s.jpg


Designed to Kill:

mg34_l.jpg





Are we seeing a pattern here?

Weapons capable of suppressing hostiles through sheer volume of fire are large, mounted, and require a crew to operate. LMGs like the DP-28 and the MG-34 are designed to give one guy the firepower of 10 bolt action riflemen, and they are designed to be used in a manner akin to a large, automatic rifle with a big clip, NOT a suppress through sheer volume of fire thing. Their magazines simply aren't big enough. They have the rate of fire, but you have to stop and change out your mag every 20-30 rounds. This gives enemy riflemen PLENTY of time to shoot you, or throw grenades at you, etc.

That's why belts are used for HMGs. You can feed them continually, one after another, with the shortest possible reload time. You simply can't do this with LMGs, and they serve another purpose entirely.

Then remove the suppression mechanic in the game as you have just argued....it serves no purpose.

So tell me. How are you going to make it so people actually care about bullets flying their way? Because at the moment. Nobody seems to give a damn. A riflemen stands a much better chance against a machine gunner. Are we to further increase the accuracy of the weapons?
 
Last edited:

Josef Nader

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
1,713
1,165
0
Then remove the suppression mechanic in the game as you have just argued....it serves no purpose.

No, it really doesn't.

So tell me. How are you going to make it so people actually care about bullets flying their way?

I'm going to -kill- them.

Because at the moment. Nobody seems to give a damn.

That's because they aren't staring at a respawn screen every time you shoot at them.

A riflemen stands a much better chance against a machine gunner.

No, he doesn't. You just need to stop setting up in windows and over cover where you're easy pickings. Use cover and concealment so they can't bloody see you, then gun them down with superior firepower.

Are we to further increase the accuracy of the weapons?

No, it'd be pretty hard to have a realistic gun that was -more- accurate than a bolt action rifle.
 

CaptHawkeye

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 23, 2009
131
93
0
Then remove the suppression mechanic in the game as you have just argued....it serves no purpose.

Stop knee jerking, pretty please?

So tell me. How are you going to make it so people actually care about bullets flying their way? Because at the moment. Nobody seems to give a damn.
You're wrong. Bullet impacts *do* affect you in the game. They just don't *neutralize* you.

A riflemen stands a much better chance against a machine gunner. Are we to further increase the accuracy of the weapons?
Jesus Christ. Do not make me have to spell out everything that is wrong with this statement.
 

gentrinity

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 26, 2009
229
109
0
Machineguns are the killers of the infantry platoon. They produce the casualties. Riflemen are there to protect the MG's and enable them to kill.

Suppression is not a goal, killing is. Supression is a tool to get the weapon into a position where it can kill more efficiently. When the MG moves rifle squad supress the enemy, when the squad moves the MG supresses the enemy. But everytime the goal is to kill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_and_let_live_(World_War_I)

It happened in WW2 and Vietnam, and every war in existence. It's a natural human phenomena not to want to kill another human, no matter how much they train you.

It is more about removing the enemy's ability to effectively engage and capture vital objectives. Getting into advantageous positions means your enemy will recognize that you have that position and will most likely not engage directly.

So suppression isn't about killing per se, there's a lot more to it. I agree though that MGs were the second most important battle implement, right after ordinance.
 

gentrinity

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 26, 2009
229
109
0
Personally I think it's misleading to say machine guns are "Designed to suppress" at all. Suppression is a very vague thing that's basically impossible to quantify. So you can't really "design" it into a weapon. It's a side effect of heavy fire and is not exclusively limited to machine guns either.

The reality is suppression exists, but it's an unreliable concept that varies in usefulness. Just ask the Japanese how afraid their soldiers were of it. Or pretty much every Army of World War 1, notorious for continuously marching their soldiers into machine gun fire, or even the Zulu, who didn't care at all about that stuff as thousand-man armies were massacred by 1 or 2 British MG teams.

The value of the machine gun comes from its ability to put out a high volume of fire from a cheap, tiny package.

You have a point that they are not necessarily "designed" for anything other than producing a high volume of accurate fire. I think that when people say "designed", they (at least me) mean that they are ideal for the purposes of suppression. By suppression, I mean that wherever I'm shooting at, people are not going to want to engage or maneuver from that position.

However, while the Japanese are a big exception, WW2 soldiers were definitely not as suicidal, and unfortunately, a lot of the research conducted as to individual soldier performance didn't really start till WW2. It's true that they suffered horrendous casualties, but the biggest killer was in fact artillery, so while thousands of men may have died by machine gun fire, at least tens of thousands of men died from ordinance, so your view as to this "bravery" may be biased if you don't consider artillery as the main killer.
 
Last edited:

Jippofin

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 15, 2011
183
72
0
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_and_let_live_(World_War_I" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_and_let_live_(World_War_I)

It happened in WW2 and Vietnam, and every war in existence. It's a natural human phenomena not to want to kill another human, no matter how much they train you.

And if you study the subject further, you will find that there are things that make crew served weapons (that is: a machinegun) far more deadly than individually used firearms. When a squad supports the gunner they expect him to do the killing, this pressure is directly reflected in to the actions of the gunner. This is even more apparent when we look in to the psychology of a MMG crew where you have decision making (gun leader) seperated from the act of killing (gunner), closely followed by spectators (ammunition bearers).
 

gentrinity

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 26, 2009
229
109
0
And if you study the subject further, you will find that there are things that make crew served weapons (that is: a machinegun) far more deadly than individually used firearms. When a squad supports the gunner they expect him to do the killing, this pressure is directly reflected in to the actions of the gunner. This is even more apparent when we look in to the psychology of a MMG crew where you have decision making (gun leader) seperated from the act of killing (gunner), closely followed by spectators (ammunition bearers).

It's funny how you only quoted that part of my post when in the last part I told you that MGs are the second biggest killer in the game. I agree with you, research shows that the better the weapon you had in WW2, the more likely you were to fire it, I'm sure it was just like that in WW1. My point was that you made it out as if everything a soldier did was to kill an enemy, when in fact that wasn't the case. These men were not murderers and most of them saw that they were shooting at another human being and felt compassion, so war is more about getting that high ground that deters people from engaging to begin with. Generals get training manuals written up, but often men don't behave the way generals want them to.
 

Jippofin

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 15, 2011
183
72
0
My point was that there are several reasons as to why the psychological factors play into enabling the ordinary fellow manning the MG to kill. I was just kindly pointing out one of the reasons what makes MG's so deadly. Regardless of other factors the man behind the trigger of a MG is more willing to kill than the guy behind the trigger of a rifle.
I am well aware of the natural resistance to kill as I've given few lectures about it. I was merely adding to your post.
 

gentrinity

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 26, 2009
229
109
0
My point was that there are several reasons as to why the psychological factors play into enabling the ordinary fellow manning the MG to kill. I was just kindly pointing out one of the reasons what makes MG's so deadly. Regardless of other factors the man behind the trigger of a MG is more willing to kill than the guy behind the trigger of a rifle.
I am well aware of the natural resistance to kill as I've given few lectures about it. I was merely adding to your post.

Ok, thank you for the clarification. You are entirely right.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA167920&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

This study talks precisely about that, saying that the better the weapon, the more likelier the shooter would actually wield it. Riflemen usually did what you mentioned, work with the machine gun.
 

Inuki

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 11, 2011
204
105
0
I'm getting trolled hardcore by the looks of it. As a riflemen. I do not fear a machine gunner at all. I can easily kill a machine gunner no matter where he is set up. On the ground. On the stairs. In a window.

As a machine gunner I have much more fun hip firing (because it offers a challenge) and I rack up a lot of kills especially in close-quarters urban environments. Much more kills than any machine gunner setting up on the floor outside the enemies spawn on fallen fighters for example.


No, it really doesn't.

No, he doesn't. You just need to stop setting up in windows and over cover where you're easy pickings. Use cover and concealment so they can't bloody see you, then gun them down with superior firepower.

And like I said. I'm more of a hipfire person. And...like I just said right now. No matter where you are...as a riflemen it's a lot easier to kill a machine gunner.

Also. WHAT COVER? Most cover isn't cover. It offers very little in terms of bullet stopping power. And hide yourself where exactly? To be totally hidden would mean you can't see the enemy at all. You'll get the derp kills from people who willingly run out into the open or see their friend get shot right in front of them. But the fact remains the same that for you to see your enemy they will be able to see you. Once they know your position. It's much easier for a riflemen to gun you down behind your "Hidden cover spot" than it is for you to gun them down. Not to mention your field of vision. Any spot for a machine gunner to set up is a spot they need to move away from after firing. Enemies will home in your location pretty swiftly.


Honestly sounds like you play the camping game of camp hoffin. Setting up on the stairs of Appartments.
 

gentrinity

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 26, 2009
229
109
0
I'm getting trolled hardcore by the looks of it. As a riflemen. I do not fear a machine gunner at all. I can easily kill a machine gunner no matter where he is set up. On the ground. On the stairs. In a window.

As a machine gunner I have much more fun hip firing (because it offers a challenge) and I rack up a lot of kills especially in close-quarters urban environments. Much more kills than any machine gunner setting up on the floor outside the enemies spawn on fallen fighters for example.




And like I said. I'm more of a hipfire person. And...like I just said right now. No matter where you are...as a riflemen it's a lot easier to kill a machine gunner.

Also. WHAT COVER? Most cover isn't cover. It offers very little in terms of bullet stopping power. And hide yourself where exactly? To be totally hidden would mean you can't see the enemy at all. You'll get the derp kills from people who willingly run out into the open or see their friend get shot right in front of them. But the fact remains the same that for you to see your enemy they will be able to see you. Once they know your position. It's much easier for a riflemen to gun you down behind your "Hidden cover spot" than it is for you to gun them down. Not to mention your field of vision. Any spot for a machine gunner to set up is a spot they need to move away from after firing. Enemies will home in your location pretty swiftly.


Honestly sounds like you play the camping game of camp hoffin. Setting up on the stairs of Appartments.

The worst part about it is the kill cam, I know the idea is to be able to choose whatever server you want, but I play at some odd hours, so I'm usually stuck with relaxed realism. As a soldier, when you find that one perfect spot, kill cam just screws it up, so if you're a machine gunner, you probably won't last in your position much longer, and honestly there aren't that many positions on these claustrophobic maps with which to engage from effective MG distances. Darkest Hour was another story where you had a massive field of view to effectively use your MG>
 

Josef Nader

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
1,713
1,165
0
I'm getting trolled hardcore by the looks of it. As a riflemen. I do not fear a machine gunner at all. I can easily kill a machine gunner no matter where he is set up. On the ground. On the stairs. In a window.

As a machine gunner I have much more fun hip firing (because it offers a challenge) and I rack up a lot of kills especially in close-quarters urban environments. Much more kills than any machine gunner setting up on the floor outside the enemies spawn on fallen fighters for example.

Those machine gunners are bad, and they are setting up in bad places. If you can see them, you can kill them. The trick is to -not get seen-. Same for riflemen. You succeed when you focus on stealth first and foremost. Kill them before they even know you're there.

And hip firing is a valid machine gun strategy. Less effective than SMGs due to the lack of ADS and the massive recoil, but if you can kill folks in CQC with a hip-fired MG more power to you.

However, I'm just the opposite. I switch away from the MG in a close quarters map. It's a big sniper rifle for me, and (using FallenFighters for an example, as it's the best map for MG'ers so far) I get the most kills sniping Germans from the Russian spawn with the DP-28 (incidentally forcing them to get their heads down and letting my guys move up). I stay prone and fire in short bursts, so the riflemen never get any sort of clear view of who's shooting them, even with killcam on. I usually change positions every time I run to the ammo dump, setting up in a new location to keep them from honing in on me.

So far I've managed to rack up 15-30 kills per match plus tons of points for killing folks on objectives and for kill assists. I'm playing a machine gunner exactly how they're supposed to be played; suppressing the enemy from long range with rapid bursts of fire so my squad can close in and take them out.

And like I said. I'm more of a hipfire person. And...like I just said right now. No matter where you are...as a riflemen it's a lot easier to kill a machine gunner.

Not true. A rifleman can't shoot five shots in just over a second, almost guaranteeing a kill if you aim right. You get one shot for every dozen of mine. Just because you are a capable marksman (and because very few people play MG right at the moment) doesn't mean the class is useless.

Also. WHAT COVER? Most cover isn't cover. It offers very little in terms of bullet stopping power.

This cover is called concealment. It's very useful. It may not stop bullets, but it does block line of sight. The wooden fences on Spartanovka, for example, are useless as cover, but I can set up prone and shoot through the holes in the bottom of the fence. Nobody ever sees what killed them, even if killcams are on.

The best way to not get shot is to not get seen.

And hide yourself where exactly? To be totally hidden would mean you can't see the enemy at all.

Than you need to learn how to hide better. Prone prone prone is your friend. I never use the cover system. I go prone, even if I'm hiding behind a wall. The simple fact of the matter is that it's much easier to see a guy standing than a guy laying on his stomach.

Also, pay close attention to the geography. I've had enemies run less than 10 meters from my position and not see me despite being deployed and capable of seeing them simply because I was tucked into a lower elevation than them. It's easy to see a running person. It's very hard to see someone prone, especially if they're in a ditch. Also, world geography is bulletproof. So basically the only thing sticking out is your gun and the top of your head, and everything else is totally safe.

Take things slow. Whenever you might possibly be in view of the enemy, go prone, never stand or crouch or sprint, because movement draws attention. Crawl a few meters at a time, let enemies you don't know you can kill pass you by, get behind them into a superior position, and then let it rip. It's amazingly effective. I do it every night on numerous pub servers.

You'll get the derp kills from people who willingly run out into the open or see their friend get shot right in front of them. But the fact remains the same that for you to see your enemy they will be able to see you.

Sure, but it's a matter of target identification. He looks at me and thinks "is that little round thing sitting in the grass over there a rock or a human head?". All I have to think is "HUMAN" and open fire. Bam, he's dead. I'm concealed, it's hard to tell where I am and whether or not I'm part of the scenery. Meanwhile, they're usually running upright back to their front lines, meaning I have a much faster target identification time than they do. I hit them from the flanks, when they aren't expecting it, and kill them before they can react.

Once they know your position. It's much easier for a riflemen to gun you down behind your "Hidden cover spot" than it is for you to gun them down.

Which is why I don't stick around when I get discovered. I've taken off running on multiple occasions once they start pinging shots off my location. I stand a much better chance running from a 2+v1 fight than trying to gun them all down. My cover spot has been compromised, and is no longer cover. Sticking around is just asking for a rifle bullet or grenade.

Not to mention your field of vision.

The best spots for machine gunners offer the maximum cover with a very narrow field of vision. Hard to sneak up on me, and if you try to come down my lane of fire, you basically can't see me until you're already in my sights. You don't want to be defending a huge wide swath of land, as the best strategy against an MGer is to spread out so he can't focus his fire on the group, allowing your mates to shoot him while he's shooting at you. By keeping the field of fire narrow, you prevent anyone but the guy you just killed from laying eyes on you.

Any spot for a machine gunner to set up is a spot they need to move away from after firing. Enemies will home in your location pretty swiftly.

Right. Shoot and scoot. Keep them guessing. This is a good tactic for any class, not just MGers. Predictability = death.

Honestly sounds like you play the camping game of camp hoffin. Setting up on the stairs of Appartments.

Except I never stop changing positions when I play MGer. I camp -far- less than the riflemen. I may not be on the point, no, but that's because my weapon isn't for that. I'm harassing the enemy, softening up their reenforcements, and diverting their attention away from the objectives. Assault and rifle guys need to get on the point while I'm providing fire support.

And as I said, apartments gets me to change away from MGer pretty quickly. I'm no good at hip-firing, and I don't help my mates by stair camping.

tl;dr - When you play MGer you need to keep moving, avoid exposing yourself as much as possible, never leave prone, and narrow your lanes of fire. Do all of this and you will dominate everything else at all ranges period.
 
Last edited:

Wookie87

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 28, 2011
143
25
0
UK
Meh, as i see it, i'd like TWI to make the mg capable of deploying on more surfaces. Many times i've been unable to deploy or perfectly deploy able looking areas. But thats it. I mean, it fits a niche in the game as suppressor/area denial and killer of any careless bloke charging aimlessly about. And it works.

As frustrating as the 'snap to' cover mechanic is, it isn't so utterly terrible to make the class unplayable or even bad. Atleast not in my experience.

It's like anything really, without support, the MG isnt gonna work well. Same for any class.
 

CaptHawkeye

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 23, 2009
131
93
0
You have a point that they are not necessarily "designed" for anything other than producing a high volume of accurate fire. I think that when people say "designed", they (at least me) mean that they are ideal for the purposes of suppression. By suppression, I mean that wherever I'm shooting at, people are not going to want to engage or maneuver from that position.

Suppression is a useful side effect of machine guns and one soldiers are trained to take advantage of. However it is not and never has been viewed as a way to render an enemy combat ineffective. The only way to do that is to annihilate him. You have the right idea though.

However, while the Japanese are a big exception, WW2 soldiers were definitely not as suicidal, and unfortunately, a lot of the research conducted as to individual soldier performance didn't really start till WW2. It's true that they suffered horrendous casualties, but the biggest killer was in fact artillery, so while thousands of men may have died by machine gun fire, at least tens of thousands of men died from ordinance, so your view as to this "bravery" may be biased if you don't consider artillery as the main killer.

Oh i'm well aware of the eye-widening statistics on artillery causalities during the war. By far the leading cause of death for combat personnel all around.
 

Trips

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 27, 2011
26
2
0
I'd like to make my case for 'buffing' LMGs. Sorry if i'm repeating earlier arguments, I haven't read all the back and forth in this thread (it seemed to get same-y pretty quickly, as internet arguments do I guess). Also sorry that looking back on the OP, this post will be off-topic. This is just where the MG debate is happening right now so this is where i'm posting it.


Personally, what I really want out of this game is infantry fire & maneuver tactics as taught in military manuals since WWII. You know what i'm talking about; put most succinctly the four Fs (4F)*

1. Find; to find the enemy before he finds you
2. Fix; to suppress or pin the enemy to deny them maneuver and to enable yours
3. Flank; to move an assaulting team to an advantageous close-in position
4. Finish; to assault with the purpose of killing, capturing or forcing the enemy off the position

I think, if gameplay could be channeled into that template, battles could turn into battles of collective wits and initiative, not just individual tactics and reaction times. That's my personal wish but I know there are a fair few of you who play these types of games with similar ideas.

We're talking about the role of the MG and in all descriptions of fire & maneuver tactics i've seen the MG's primary role is to suppress the enemy (Fix) so that the assaulting force can finish. In doctrines where the section is split into a gun group w/MG and an assault group the gun group is always left behind, at range, to suppress. Even in doctrines with fireteams with equal firepower (1 LMG each usually), at the final assault (Finish) that fireteam is usually split into buddy teams and the LMG and one rifleman provide close suppression/cover as the final two riflemen charge with grenades and bayonets. So as I understand battle drills and doctrine, when we talk about MGs, even at the squad level, we're really talking about the 2nd F, fixing the enemy.

Counter-examples of medium machine guns have been posted, but whilst it's true they're more suited for sustained suppression I think that's besides the point. The point of introducing the squad MG, and they way it's used, at least theoretically, which is all I know, was to provide infantry squads and platoons with the same suppressive effect when they're fighting out of the field of fire of, or even away from, company-level+ weapons groups. It's unfeasible for a 'bread and butter' squad to carry those around and supply the ammo.


Now I don't want the MG to become a 'noob tube', hold down Mouse1 to win weapon. MG users should still have to provide effective fire (i.e. killin muthaf***as who stick their heads out), but at the moment I don't think it has the 'win the firefight' effect that i've come to understand it should do. Partly it's not the fault of the MGs, limited ranges mean that the extended barrels don't count for a thing and that MG positions become almost instantly exposed; imagine trying to locate the fire with 500m of rugged country in front of you. Partly I feel it is the fault of the game mechanics, or that the game mechanics could at least be modified to that end. Stuff like more pronounced suppression effects and less MG barrel jump I'm 100% behind.


*I know everyone has their own acronym but I think 4F puts it most simply.
 

Josef Nader

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
1,713
1,165
0
You are 100% correct, mate. The problem we're running into is that a lot of MG'ers are trying to "fix" wrong. An LMG can't match the sustained RoF that an HMG can. What I'm trying to push as an alternative is to hit the enemy from a concealed location and use pinpoint bursts of accurate fire to keep his head down without exposing yourself or giving away your position. He doesn't know where the bullets are coming from, and he just watched his buddy get picked off when he tried to peek out. He isn't going anywhere. Hence, my guys can close in and finish him off.

There's a steep learning curve to doing this right, but I'm getting better at it. I'm actually watching enemy soldiers dive for cover at 200m because I've opened up on them. It's glorious, and it works perfectly. It's just -not- easy to learn.
 

Trips

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 27, 2011
26
2
0
I know what you mean. Currently i'm always thinking where I can be to deny an avenue of approach and I've found a couple of places where it can work (edge of a 1st floor window in FallenFighters, trenches in NW corner in Barracks, both as allies). But when I'm in those positions I feel like i'm not doing enough for the team. It's those enemies on the objective that my team is trying to push off that I should be suppressing, or the ones that are firing on my teammates as they cap, not the one or two trying to flank that I can pick off.

A dead enemy is one that can't cap or prevent my team from capping in the immediate future but I don't feel primary to the fight covering flanks. And from what I've read and seen, especially in the era of bolt action rifles, the MGs are the (fire)fight.


Edit: from my experience, in this game there are no firefights so perhaps that's a separate issue that needs to be solved first.
 
Last edited:

Josef Nader

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
1,713
1,165
0
I know what you mean. Currently i'm always thinking where I can be to deny an avenue of approach and I've found a couple of places where it can work (edge of a 1st floor window in FallenFighters, trenches in NW corner in Barracks, both as allies). But when I'm in those positions I feel like i'm not doing enough for the team. It's those enemies on the objective that my team is trying to push off that I should be suppressing, or the ones that are firing on my teammates as they cap, not the one or two trying to flank that I can pick off.

A dead enemy is one that can't cap or prevent my team from capping in the immediate future but I don't feel primary to the fight covering flanks. And from what I've read and seen, especially in the era of bolt action rifles, the MGs are the (fire)fight.

Au contraire, I found that the second floor on FF is one of the best MG positions in the game. Go prone up there, you're hard to spot, as accurate as a rifleman, and with your sights adjusted properly, you can easily kill Germans running out of the spawn. At the very least, they dive for cover and continue crawling. I've had plenty stop, drop, and bandage as soon as I start shooting, and their progress is slowed to a crawl as I plink away at anyone dumb enough to stand up. I may not get a whole lot of kills like this, but they are well and truly suppressed, and I didn't need a screen filter to do it. In fact, some of my best moments as an MG'er were watching my team crawl across the plaza under the umbrella of my machine gun fire preventing the Axis from closing in and re-capping the objectives. I truly felt like I was making a significant difference in the flow of the battle.

As you said, if the Axis could silence me, they would have a much better chance. I become the lynchpin of the fight. My buddies are pushing forward to keep them from getting a good shot at me, and I'm keeping the Axis from closing in on my buddies. The MG is the center of the entire battle.

However, that's the exception not the rule. The best thing I've found so far in any map is to never get out of cover. Practice your stealth until it becomes second nature. I find myself in much better positions once I've learned what to look for. It's really just a matter of trial and error.

Stick with it. MGs dominate the battlefield if used right, but they are very difficult to use right. The class has a lot of constraints and is a very high priority target. It's like the Medic class in TF2. Having a good one can make a team, so they're the primary target. Not having one can cripple a team.
 
Last edited:

Trips

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 27, 2011
26
2
0
Thanks for the advice, i'll have to try that FallenFighters position out.