Wheeled DShK HMG

Hello to all of you, I just joined, and i must say this is one fantastic mod here  :)

Anyways I am writing because I've got a suggestion for a Soviet HMG team.

I have been thinking about a DShK Machine gun mounted on a little wheel kart with a seat for the gunner which can be towed around like an AT-gun, like the real ones they used.

Note: I do know that there's a bug in the engine that might influence your opinions on crew-served Soviet weapons.

Best regards, Skykid93 :)

Soviets don't need an MG.

HyperSniper999 wrote:
Soviets don't need an MG.

Maybe as a Reward unit for mortar, but They don't need a buildable MG

yeah a suppression weapon coupled with the doom mortar may be a little to much... expensive to do but still overwellming infantry death.

Yeah, i though that the morter + hmg would make it op, just a suggestion though :P

ALso, the devs have animation problems with the 'Gun Carriage' HMG, and they don't want to use the Tripod System, and they do have Bi-pod DP-28s for Strelky...

I didn't know this, but like i said, the real DShK was "towed" like an AT-gun with a seat for the gunner, but that'll probally lead to another animation problem

I know it might be OP but still an HMG is kinda essential in holding a defensive position.  And i don't like that the mg that you can build when you select prop war doc, has a pop of 3 even after costing so much and being doctrine specific.  I mean it's not that strong defensively or offensively nor does it suppress that fast. 

Last edited August 4, 2010 at 8:31 PM by Kohler7

Skykid93 wrote:
I didn't know this, but like i said, the real DShK was "towed" like an AT-gun with a seat for the gunner, but that'll probally lead to another animation problem

Good idea. :D
A Soviet MG could be towed. No retreat, small arc of fire (or not), last 2 crew members die at the same time, they cant garrison buildings.
This kind of swap for a MG dugouts wouldnt be OP.

Paciat wrote:

Skykid93 wrote:
I didn't know this, but like i said, the real DShK was "towed" like an AT-gun with a seat for the gunner, but that'll probally lead to another animation problem

Good idea. :D
A Soviet MG could be towed. No retreat, small arc of fire (or not), last 2 crew members die at the same time, they cant garrison buildings.
This kind of swap for a MG dugouts wouldnt be OP.

+1.

Towed MG wouldn't be OP. It'd be quite easy to animate, basically a HMG mountedon the chassis of a 57mm. :P

Newbie. wrote:

Paciat wrote:

Skykid93 wrote:
I didn't know this, but like i said, the real DShK was "towed" like an AT-gun with a seat for the gunner, but that'll probally lead to another animation problem

Good idea. :D
A Soviet MG could be towed. No retreat, small arc of fire (or not), last 2 crew members die at the same time, they cant garrison buildings.
This kind of swap for a MG dugouts wouldnt be OP.

+1.

Towed MG wouldn't be OP. It'd be quite easy to animate, basically a HMG mountedon the chassis of a 57mm. :P

+1!!!
I think that Propaganda could benefit of this!! when you choose Impenetrable Defense, you will be able to deploy these guns!! Their defensive bunkers could use this "new" HMG instead :P...

I could think of making them a reward unit replacing the ability of double flamers (sniper ace/patistanz could be a option to). But i wouldnt make it available to prop. or tank doc. they are powerfull enough, in my opinion urban is a little weaker. So u get this call in unit (there could be a max of units on map like 2 or 3). And its as powerfull as the flamers making it depending on the strategie of the player (wich actually is the sense of the rewardunits), so either mgs or flamers...

Paciat wrote:

Skykid93 wrote:
I didn't know this, but like i said, the real DShK was "towed" like an AT-gun with a seat for the gunner, but that'll probally lead to another animation problem

Good idea. :D
A Soviet MG could be towed. No retreat, small arc of fire (or not), last 2 crew members die at the same time, they cant garrison buildings.
This kind of swap for a MG dugouts wouldnt be OP.

That's exactly what I was thinking :D Also a small arc of fire would make sense for the sake of balance, it would be very powerful (since it's a 12,7x108mm), have long range and a slow rate of fire, but would be easy to flank due to a small arc of fire, it could also take slightly longer to deploy to make it easier to flank :)

I think a MG for the Russians is a good idea, and if possible, should be included in it

Urban is not UP at all, sniper ace is great and paristans are epic.

Hi, I'm new here but I'd have to say that the Russians should eventually be able to upgrade their standard & Guard squads to have a Degtyarev LMG, similar to how the Americans can upgrade to get a BAR. Historically LMGs did eventually become available, albeit after such great losses.

Also, the towed Maxim HMG should make an appearance occasionally as well. What do you all think?

Guards don't need SMGd, get steakly to do that.

The DShk HMG will cause problams with coding and such and the soviets don't really need an mg.

If Russians don't need for MG unit, may be for other factions modder will remove MGs too?
Because it's F***ng meanly ... that the modders look like cowards & unscrupulous.
Why ballance is making for russian faction lnly, not for other nations?

Sturmovik wrote:
If Russians don't need for MG unit, may be for other factions modder will remove MGs too?
Because it's F***ng meanly ... that the modders look like cowards & unscrupulous.
Why ballance is making for russian faction lnly, not for other nations?

It's such a shame that you don't understand reasons, soviets doesn't need MGs, all factions have snipers and PE doesn't, shall we put a sniper in PE or remove them from the other factions?

What a immature statement... Also why the other factions need to be balanced if already are, they'll never have perfect balance; US, Wehr & PE are ok, just brits are left.

blackbishop wrote:

Sturmovik wrote:
If Russians don't need for MG unit, may be for other factions modder will remove MGs too?
Because it's F***ng meanly ... that the modders look like cowards & unscrupulous.
Why ballance is making for russian faction lnly, not for other nations?

It's such a shame that you don't understand reasons, soviets doesn't need MGs, all factions have snipers and PE doesn't, shall we put a sniper in PE or remove them from the other factions?

What a immature statement... Also why the other factions need to be balanced if already are, they'll never have perfect balance; US, Wehr & PE are ok, just brits are left.

+1

Sturmovik wrote:
If Russians don't need for MG unit, may be for other factions modder will remove MGs too?
Because it's F***ng meanly ... that the modders look like cowards & unscrupulous.
Why ballance is making for russian faction lnly, not for other nations?

Kindly refrain from making such stupid comments or I will adopt a more 'liberal' and ''colourful' language  regarding your attitude on this subject.

Soviet mg team...not gonna happen. Play US or WH if you want MG teams.

Cheers

PS. People should really avoid this Golumn metality and think about faction uniqueness and balance: 

'my own...my precious faction should have everything...and be the best...with the best troops and the best guns and ALL the choices in the world...more more more....my precious...

Last edited September 24, 2010 at 8:26 PM by Zerstörer

Not only that he posted in a old topic...

[quote author=blackbishop link=topic=4116.msg48186#msg48186
It's such a shame that you don't understand reasons, soviets doesn't need MGs, all factions have snipers and PE doesn't, shall we put a sniper in PE or remove them from the other factions?

[/quote]

It's simple.
On EARLY PHASE of the game, MG teams will stop & supress the enemy very easy on the main direction & you will have more time to fortify defence line. Sniper may not introduse the game quikly ass needed (Support structure resource repay for unfold ability produse snipers.)
You will loose the time for territory rush. Loses will be so much.
Not every time ammo & fuel donation will be enough.
But time is leaking.
Spread your attention on the resource counts, & wait for needed border. It is at least 30-35% of attention required ... that the 20% of them can be used for flank defence, for example.
It is useless expenditure of time & unadvance your troops. Pointless for commander.

It's more simple than you think.

Zerstörer wrote:
...

Soviet mg team...not gonna happen. Play US or WH if you want MG teams.

Cheers

PS. People should really avoid this Golumn metality and think about faction uniqueness and balance...
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060310225158/lotr/images/b/ba/Smeagol_5.jpg

So, you can stop this senseless discussion.

Only one faction really uses mg play, the WH. The faction was designed to have early defensive mg play vs the offensive US play. Soviets, much like US/PE are a faction for agressive/offensive play.
Its the reason why people prefer one faction over another, because the particular style of each faction appeals to them at a different degree.

You don't change and copy paste a faction to suit your gameplay. You just pick the faction that suits you gemaplay best instead. That's why there are 5 of them! Then you get tired of playing the same way and play with another faction for different play style.
Its a simple enough thing to understand, surely!

Zerstörer, MG is not only defensive operation.
... some time a think, that you are nor expirienced with strategic part of military operations.
Most important part of everyone operation is bridgehead.
Bridgehead must be organised for concentrate & attack, or counterattack. Bridgehead can be rezerve line for withdrawal if battle is not that succeed that presumed. It's strategic interests.
Every MG or heavy MG can be important element of defence line, or bridgehead.

Last thing. Propaganda strategy is stipulate the defence operations. Defence MG nest is a part of it. For my opinoin, MG nest can be sacrifice for MG crew. Tactical, MGs doing fat part, more than MG nest.

Do word "balance" means anything to you? Supress enemy and then blob him over...??
Damn, If we make MG for soviets, soon you ppl will want one-man snipers ( like wehr, of course), jeeps for SU, snipers for PE, and God only knows what will want Brit players... I like balanced games, but I like also VARIETY of factions with different weapons.
This whole topic is totally pointless, devs said NO to soviet MG, so they won't change their mind, even if you would sing a song about Soviet MG.
I don't want to EF become World in Conflict, where every unit in US army has it's counterpart in Soviet army. Somebody should cut down this discussion.

cephalos wrote:
Do word "balance" means anything to you? Supress enemy and then blob him over...??
Damn, If we make MG for soviets, soon you ppl will want one-man snipers ( like wehr, of course), jeeps for SU, snipers for PE, and God only knows what will want Brit players... I like balanced games, but I like also VARIETY of factions with different weapons.
This whole topic is totally pointless, devs said NO to soviet MG, so they won't change their mind, even if you would sing a song about Soviet MG.
I don't want to EF become World in Conflict, where every unit in US army has it's counterpart in Soviet army. Somebody should cut down this discussion.

Jeeps is not usually RKKA to be armed, ...
Rude ballanced games is defy the history facts usually.
Ballance & history facts is makes the procedure hard.
Fighting soldiers not only crying for ballance.

Make this thing with other way. Improvise.

Conterpart of weapon units now - is a part of a weapon race.
When it's start, it was the needs of the front & critical desition.

Example:
US tank army does not have effective AT weapon for nazi panzers. But British army have. When british engeneers place his heavy AT cannon on Sherman they have heavy terrible weapon for nazi Panther & Tiger.
Some story with Soviet weapons.

From battles of WW1 Machinegun is the one of main heavy weapon of the infantry unit. During WW2 - outmaneuver & rationally placed MG with flanking platoons attack can be effective & critical.

Don't be angry & don't worry, it's a very need of the army.
Image the picture, that you a commander of the supply service, or some kind ... of the army. Your army does not have the MGs ...
Say that ... you are commander of the wermacht, your MAIN STRATEGY is BLITZKRIEG. Mobile offensive operation alone the hole front. Your critical strikes is very quick & hard for enemy defensive doctrine ...
Image? ...
The key ... YOUR WERMACHT DOES NOT HAVE MG34, MG42 & other models.
What you have? MP-40 ... in 1944 - MP44 ... Thats inough. Not thats important, thats invading US army have MG units & have local advantage for some places of the front.

Not that important, that Russian attack corps orginise the bridgehead with hide local position numbering to division. Your flanking operation is face with hard defence line (AT guns & heavy MG units), wile Tank Strike army slash your rear ... & other companies gush out to the hole.

Good luck with your imagination.

Last edited September 27, 2010 at 4:19 PM by Sturmovik

cephalos wrote:
even if you would sing a song about Soviet MG.

Could be a nice song though;)
But could we close this thread? The Dev's already said no to the Mg, and the arguing seems to be pointless now.

Indeed, it has run its course and we have answered and explained why numerous times....

For those who don't get it...NO MG TEAM FOR THE SOVIET FACTION