Rooftop machine guns turn too fast

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
656

Right, so you don’t model the crewmember since many of them would even be outside of the tank, so you don’t get an MG as it makes no sense for that to be a thing.

And instead the MG is fixed to the turret and just aims forward as we can pretend the commander has a string attached to the trigger and is able to operate it that way and you retain the benefit of having an MG.

Even with a crew member angles like this make zero sense.

image
image1256×780 69.2 KB

A guy on the back still would not be able to operate it like this either.

image

657

How much more of an angle do you need to hit a heli?

image

658

That makes no sense to make the game worse. Why would you make it worse? Why would you take the operability away? It would make the game actually worse for everyone, so why do it. Justify the why to make the game worse.

You obviously don’t know why those MGs are there. They are for Anti Aircraft. You can 100 percent operate those MGs at severe angles. The M2 uses thumb triggers and you guide the rounds fired by following the tracers. So it can 100 percent be used from the back of the vehicle like that. It was designed to be.

659

That makes no sense to make the game worse. Why would you make it worse? Why would you take the operability away? It would make the game actually worse for everyone, so why do it. Justify the why to make the game worse.

Justify why the game is better by giving some nations the ability to fend of planes through sheer magic but others nations do not get this ability.

You obviously don’t know why those MGs are there. They are for Anti Aircraft. You can 100 percent operate those MGs at severe angles. The M2 uses thumb triggers and you guide the rounds fired by following the tracers. So it can 100 percent be used from the back of the vehicle like that. It was designed to be.

Yet on top of getting to operate this MG without a crew member, you also get to aim through a scope whilst doing so with ranging and everything.

You’re not going to hit crap if you’re aiming a gun 80 degrees up in the air and you’re borderline hugging it.

660

cas players wanting every advantage lmao

661

Which nations dont get this ability?

And you get to use binos from the highest point of a vehicle. Want to get rid of that too? Noone gets out to use them.

You have absolutely no clue how to use a pintle mounted weapon. You wouldn’t be hugging it, you’d be crouched down behind the firing position, there is plenty of room to operate them at the extreme angles.

662

Which nations dont get this ability?

Practically every nation that isn’t US, no one gets a similar ability.

And you get to use binos from the highest point of a vehicle. Want to get rid of that too? Noone gets out to use them.

I’d rather get rid of third person that allows you to peak corners.

You have absolutely no clue how to use a pintle mounted weapon.

If only Warthunder showed me how they were used, here I am thinking they’re magic.

663

All nations have rooftop MGs, all nations have some sort of 12.7mm HMG.

Play Sim, problem solved.

Nope, don’t dodge the question. Do you think binos need to be removed since they don’t have a person get out to use them?

Warthunder doesn’t need to because having a crewmember on every tank operating the HMG is unneeded. You need to take time and think about what makes a difference and what doesn’t in a strictly vehicle based game. If you look at Enlisted, the commanders are modeled like you ask because it is an infantry based game where killing a commander on an MG matters. It doesn’t make a difference on Warthunder.

You must take your car to the mechanic and think you’ll wait 45 seconds for the engine to be fixed huh? Because repairs are magic on Warthunder too, but they are present because the game would be shit without it. The MGs are a similar thing. Neccessary for gameplay, but not realistic.

664

All nations have rooftop MGs, all nations have some sort of 12.7mm HMG.

Having one vehicle with a useable MG is hardly the same thing as half the tech tree having one.

Play Sim, problem solved.

Playing Sim is already an issue if you don’t want to sit in queue forever.

Nope, don’t dodge the question. Do you think binos need to be removed since they don’t have a person get out to use them?

I don’t care, at least it’s equal.

You must take your car to the mechanic and think you’ll wait 45 seconds for the engine to be fixed huh? Because repairs are magic on Warthunder too, but they are present because the game would be shit without it. The MGs are a similar thing. Neccessary for gameplay, but not realistic.

Repairs are equal on all nation, and we’ve already stated that repairs are important for gameplay purposes.

Killing a commander on an MG matters. It doesn’t make a difference on Warthunder.

It would matter if you could actually do it without having to penetrate the entire armor to do so.

665

That sounds like you were wrong. Have you maybe considered why every vehicle, especially early WW2 vehicles don’t have those rooftop MGs? Probably not. Gaijin didn’t just think up which vehicles did or didn’t have them, they just added the vehicles as they were.

That means you won’t apply your logic to things that operate similarly. Nothing about warfare is equal, nothing about Warthunder is equal. Trying to make this game “equal” instead of balanced is a rediculous endevor. Balancing has already happened with the br placement of the vehicles, and I guarantee that every .50 cal the US has on early vehicles makes a difference to the br of that vehicle.

You aren’t going to misquote me by capitalizing a letter. Exposed commanders make a difference in Enlisted because rootop MGs are really deadly to infantry. Add to that that when you are co trolling the commander he does pop out of the tank. Almost like Gaijin knows what to model into their games depending on the type of game. Infantry don’t exist in Warthunder, so modeling them doesn’t make much sense from a gameplay perspective.

666

That sounds like you were wrong. Have you maybe considered why every vehicle, especially early WW2 vehicles don’t have those rooftop MGs? Probably not. Gaijin didn’t just think up which vehicles did or didn’t have them, they just added the vehicles as they were.

Plenty of vehicles that had them that didn’t get them.

image

And even those that did get them, still got a lazy implementation of them.
image

image

Unless that looks like 25 degrees to you.

That means you won’t apply your logic to things that operate similarly. Nothing about warfare is equal, nothing about Warthunder is equal. Trying to make this game “equal” instead of balanced is a rediculous endevor. Balancing has already happened with the br placement of the vehicles, and I guarantee that every .50 cal the US has on early vehicles makes a difference to the br of that vehicle.

Then the BRs will change again if that’s the case.

You aren’t going to misquote me by capitalizing a letter.

what?

MGs are really deadly to infantry

MGs are also really deadly to anything with less than 30mm or so of armor, so it does matter.
Plenty of light vehicles are pretty much guaranteed to die when engaging certain vehicles because if you take out the barrel or the gunner, the MG will get you, if you take out the MG the gunner will get you, so you need to manage to take out the gunner and commander at the same time somehow, which is essentially impossible at times.

667

You need the range,… or to be more exact you need the Helos to enter yours,…

Unguided rockets can be fired from several kilometers away, outside MG ranges → reducing efficiency yes, but reducing also the chances to get hit as well per machine gun fire.

As all rockets are HE or HEAT simulated rounds → the range only matters for spreading of rockets.

668

A lot of the early helis have to get close, UHs and AHs flying above the map early game and they always get shredded as they try to grind 200k RP somehow.

Against ATGMs from at least 3km away your MG isn’t’ going to do anything, no.

669

The Panther has 2 models that have one, the Panzer 3M has one, and the Panzer 4H has one. The AMX-13 doesn’t have one in game. The ARL-44 doesn’t And seem to have the MG mounted on a turret ring foe the commander’s cupola, so it doesn’t really fit your argument. The other pictures aren’t real pictures so they aren’t worth anything.

That is an MG34, it has a stock and a fighting position (commander) that would limit it’s useful depression and elevation. You would need to basically shoulder it to fire it effectively because of the stock and trigger placement. Again, you don’t understand weaponry enough to pick any good examples.

Thay have already balanced the MGs in the placement of vehicles. Removing them would cause more unnecessary work and remove features from the game. You must be the only person I’ve ever come across that thinks roof mounted MGs need to be removed.

You need to include the full sentence at a minimum for a quote. Cherrypicking (removing words you want from a quote) can/will change the meaning of the sentence. Capitalizing commander doesn’t make it a new sentence there for the quote. Context matters, especially when trying to use someone elses ideas.

Only HMGs are deadly to vehicles with around 30mm of armor. LMGs, like the MG34/43, and other 7.62ish machine guns cant penetrate armor of more than 15mm (flat, point blank). Add any angle and the HMGs become much less effective quite quickly. Light vehicles have an armor trade off for speed, so if you use a light vehicle and don’t expect to get MGed, you need to think about playstyle a bit. If you think that rooftop MGs need to be removed because light vehicles were designed with light armor, then you’re an idiot. That vulnerability is the tradeoff for speed and maneuverability. You don’t see a Tiger 2 going 115 km/h like the R3 T20, just like you don’t see a Tiger 2 get killed by an HMG from the side like an R3 T20.

Fun thing I realized is that you want there to be commanders modeled for the MG position so you can MG the commander to keep them from MGing your vehicle. If this is anywhere near accurate, you need to just stop playing light vehicles, thay aren’t for you.

1 Like
670

That is an MG34, it has a stock and a fighting position (commander) that would limit it’s useful depression and elevation.

So it doesn’t do shit for AA.

Thay have already balanced the MGs in the placement of vehicles.

Oh and the BRs are so perfect that they should never be touched on.

You need to include the full sentence at a minimum for a quote.

No I don’t, your comment is right there if you want the full quote, I’m not going to quote your entire post every time, it’s purely to show what I am replying to.

If you think that rooftop MGs need to be removed because light vehicles were designed with light armor, then you’re an idiot.

The discussion is about AA, and then you pretended killing the commander is pointless.
My point wasn’t to remove the rooftop MGs either but instead have them be forward firing, as I’ve stated repeatedly now.

That vulnerability is the tradeoff for speed and maneuverability.

It’s only a vulnerability if the US isn’t on your team.

Fun thing I realized is that you want there to be commanders modeled for the MG position so you can MG the commander to keep them from MGing your vehicle.

It’s baffling how many of you people are completely incapable of understanding any other perspective than a selfish one.

Just as baffling as your inability to comprehend the things you are reading where I repeatedly argued against adding a commander outside of the vehicle.

Stop creating strawman.

671

What you haven’t demonstrated is an actual reason why they should be nerfed.

They aren’t overly effective against aircraft.

They aren’t overly effective against ground vehicles.

They are already part of the BR balance of the game, nerfing them would require a whole new BR pass for every vehicle with one, every vehicle that uses them for tracking enemies, every vehicle that’s kept balanced by the threat of enemy roof guns.

They aren’t exclusive to one nation, they’re common place across most nations once you leave WW2 eras. They aren’t omnipresent, but this also isn’t a massive thing that certain nations are missing out on.

They are nothing more than a useful utility. They add gameplay depth by allowing spatially aware players to engage aircraft diving on them, by allowing slower tanks to prevent overconfident agile ones from running rings around them. They allow vehicles like the T95 and IS-4 to be much more comfortable to play as it helps counter their otherwise very easily rushed vehicles from being overwhelmed by tracking targets. They are the singular consistent counter to heli rushers, and they can be used to mark enemies for teammates while you’re in a stalemate.

These are all useful things they can do, but none of them are so massively impactful that they need nerfing, nor is it a balance problem that certain nations don’t have them on most of their vehicles. So why should they be nerfed?

1 Like
672

It does because planes aren’t always directly above you. If an aircraft is flying low around 1km away from you, it doesn’t have to point above 25 degrees vertically to hit it. What a stupid thing to insinuate.

They aren’t perfect by any means, but this this MG “problem” has already been balanced out.

You don’t just take random parts of things for a quote, it’s bad writing. You quoting me to show what your replying to is the exact reason you should use the whole sentence and not change the quoted sentences grammar because it changes the meaning and can confuse others.

What range would they be zeroed to hit? Where would this adjustment be? Would it be trained at 0 degress x/y and be useless because they wouldn’t actually hit anything? It doesn’t make any sense to make that change because it would render them useless.

All of the other nations have 12.7mm rooftop HMGs and rifle caliber LMGs even though you think they don’t. You can try to deny that, but you’d just be wrong. Heres an example for you; the IS-2 can kill American light vehicles like the T92 because it has a 12.7mm rooftop HMG.

It’s baffling that you think I can’t understand something and disagree with it. I don’t agree with removing features from the game without good quantifyable reason to do so.

You want to explain to me how disabling rooftop MGs wouldn’t be different from removing them? An MG that doesn’t work is effectively removed because it can’t contribute to the fight.

673

I believe the answer your looking for is no.

674

These are some of the reasons I disagree with you. You don’t know how the weapons themselves are operated. You don’t know the difference of operating it from the cupola and operating it from outside the cupola. You don’t understand why a gun sitting at rest doesn’t mean it will be fired at that position. You don’t understand bullets can travel for long distances to engage aircraft. You don’t understand that helicopters and planes dont usually attack from 90 degrees above you. You have no idea about what nations do or don’t have rooftop machine guns. You have no idea why interwar and early WW2 tanks don’t have rooftop MGs. You don’t understand why so many US vehicles have the M2. Why would I ever take what you suggest seriously on this issue? Nothing you have tried to say could justify to me that rooftop machine guns make this game worse, but I have plenty of reasons why their existence makes the game better.

675

It does because planes aren’t always directly above you. If an aircraft is flying low around 1km away from you, it doesn’t have to point above 25 degrees vertically to hit it. What a stupid thing to insinuate.

Yeah, because I’m casually going to kill a plane from over 1km away with a 7.92mm.

take random parts of a quote, it’s writing.

Nothing was changed, and I’m discussing it with you and I’m sure you know what you said. If I’m quoting you in an entirely different location, sure, over here I don’t need posts to be any longer than they already are.

What range would they be zeroed to hit? Where would this adjustment be? Would it be trained at 0 degress x/y and be useless because they wouldn’t actually hit anything? It doesn’t make any sense to make that change because it would render them useless.

Just follow the main gun as it already does, if necessary with limited degrees.

All of the other nations have 12.7mm rooftop HMGs and rifle caliber LMGs even though you think they don’t. You can try to deny that, but you’d just be wrong.

The point is how many of them do, Germany has a singular one in the first 4 ranks I’m pretty sure and you try to pretend that is equal to what the US has because ‘‘they both have them’’.

The IS-2 can kill American light vehicles like the T92 because it has a 12.7mm rooftop HMG.

Yeah… one of maybe 5 or 6 at these ranks, with most of them on the SU and ISUs I believe which are hardly played.

I don’t agree with removing features from the game without good quantifyable reason to do so.

There isn’t a reason for them to be added in the first place.

You want to explain to me how disabling rooftop MGs wouldn’t be different from removing them? An MG that doesn’t work is effectively removed because it can’t contribute to the fight.

What is sarcasm? if your argument for having this feature is that it’s simpler for the devs, than not having them at all would make for an even stronger argument.

You don’t know how the weapons themselves are operated.

Clearly it’s either ghosts or magic, maybe pixie dust but that might also just count as magic.