DeckCheney wrote:QUAD wrote:MGs should have 3 standardized stat settings: suppression (MG3), damage (M60), utility (FN MAG/PKM) with 2 levels of effectiveness per setting.
and then you have Automatic Rifle (RPK/Type 73/L86), SAW (M60, Minimi), and GPMG (MG3).
Hate it. Too complicated already. K.I.S.S.
Identical stats for the following secondry weapons.
LMGs (Beltfed), [Stat], 50% Accuracy, 850m 0.5HE/Shot Range, 100 shots/burst, 10 second Burst/5 Second Reload = 400RPM
SAWs (Magazine) [CQC], 50% Accuracy/Stabiliser, 750m Range, 0.5HE/Shot, 50 shots/burst, 5 Second Reload/Burst = 300RPM
DMRs [CQC], 70% Accuracy, 30% Stabiliser, 950m Range, 0.5HE/Shot, 20 shots/burst, 5 Second Reload/Burst, = 120RPM
Snipers [STAT] 90% Accuracy, 1100m Range, 1HE/Shot, 2 Second Reload, =30RPM
Way too many infantry units are only using automatic secondary weapons- corespondingly DMRs and Sniper Rfiles are poorly represented and limited to only SF/Recon units. This is unrealistic when many nations have their primary infantry doctrines oriented towards long range engagement, or least specialised mountain units that predominantly include designated snipers.
IMO its more simple to standardize rate of fire within 100 bullets per class and then just assign a suppression, killing, or general role to the MG.
Under the system you propose it is more complicated behind the scenes for non forum people, makes the game harder to balance (AT Weapon quality is the number one factor with rigidly standardized MGs), and doesn't make you change your strategy depending on the units. I also agree on DMRs being under represented, the Dragovov and M14 would function in my proposed system as T2 (the best in stats) killing GPMGs; the drawback, not effective when suppressed.
I think what you're saying would be better than the random hodge podge mess we have now though, just not the optimal choice.