To be fair their removal was just as unnecessary, putting effort into decreasing this quality of life.
I’d say I understand this is not a priority for them, but slowly adding functionality to existing machineguns as little changes on the side of bigger updates would be nice to see, as they still provide gameplay benefits. You can defeat open vehicles, clear foliage, shoot off camouflage decorators and to some extent defend against aerial attacks.
Since this functionality is mostly already met with coaxial or roof mounted machineguns though it is worth noting none of those functions are inherently new, but the damage output by time would simply be increased by allowing for the use of additional machineguns.
3 Likes
Your points are very much valid but have been made several times before, if someone doesn’t want to listen they don’t want to listen. Look at his language, it’s not about the topic anymore, it’s about ego.
Don’t waste your time.
Depending on the vehicle. Cause let’s not forget some vehicles have side or angled MG guns. I remember there was a Japanese Tank with an MG stuffed to the left side of the turret cheek frontally.
Yet again, the main reason is historical accuracy.
Just that it won’t change gameplay does not mean we should not add it.
In that logic we should never improve the graphics.
3 Likes
Again, history accuracy has been thrown in the gutter for years. That’s not a good reason for it to ever be re-enabled.
just saying. i am a huge advocate for historical accuracy. and since it won’t change much, why go against it?
3 Likes
Cause those resources could be used to improve other fields of development. Not a minor feature that benefits almost no one.
“other fields”, “rescources”, “benefits no one”
Like I get that i would rather see the Chengdu J-10 in game but like i think it ain’t that hard for gaijin to just make a machine gun work in game compared to some of the other things they made.
4 Likes
I’m coming to this, pissed off that the Lago I has a hull mounted 13.2, yet it cannot shoot it. HULL MOUNTED MGS FTW!!!
3 Likes
It’s better to have the machine guns and never need them than to not have them and need to use them. There’s plenty of times a weird-placed MG could have saved me from a pesky SPAA hitting my rear. As for most vehicles with the MGs already modeled (Pz. III and IVs, Panthers, Shermans, T-34s etc.) they already are a weak spot in the armor - so why not have the benefit of having a functional one as well?
7 Likes
Yes, I made that exact point before. Agreed.
1 Like
Somehow only the russians usually get their hull mgs modeled, with few other nations having any rn.
1 Like
Plenty of Russian vehicles with on-functional hull and turret MG’s. Look at the T-34’s, BT tanks and such.
1 Like
the T-26-4 is the only one with a rear coaxial MG modelled and useable, T-28s modelled but unusable, Japenese tanks can use the hull mg and rear coaxial MG is modelled but unuseable.
LVT-4(ZIS-2) also can use hull mg, M2 medium tank also can use all MGs except turret roof MGs, M2A4 and IS-7 can use hull MGs, and that’s it
1 Like
The ostwind 2 (maybe the 1) has a usable hull mg
1 Like
Bit of a necro thread but given that we’re trying to go to more detailed internal modelling of AFVs generally, starting with this update, it would be nice if this could be part of it too. It’s not added work if they’re remodelling interiors anyway.
3 Likes
It’s not a necro thead, this topic will stay relevant until they actually have modelled all machine guns!
1 Like
also the two turret premium the russians got
1 Like