C6A1 Flex

[John Cena]

This is the Canadian machine gun without a scope.

Why even have this class in the game? Its completely ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ useless. I never see anyone play it.

[Jack The Dripper]

Luke Skywalker の投稿を引用：

This is the Canadian machine gun without a scope.

Why even have this class in the game? Its completely ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ useless. I never see anyone play it.

skill issue

[Jesus_Guy]

Every other MG gets a scope, but the Canadian one. im not sure why.

[Jack The Dripper]

Jesus_Guy の投稿を引用：

Every other MG gets a scope, but the Canadian one. im not sure why.

I thought British HMG didn't have it either

[Jack The Dripper]

Idk why you guys complaining anyways the m240 iron sights are good up to 400m from my experience unless you can't tell meters then your a bit screwed either way they'll probably add optic later on

[Plumpotato]

Both Brits and Canadians don't get a scope on their MG because of the view the British had towards machine guns: Don't give the gun a scope because the gunner will focus on single targets instead of area suppression. This policy extended to the Commonwealth nations like Canada as well.

[John Cena]

Casspir の投稿を引用：

Idk why you guys complaining anyways the m240 iron sights are good up to 400m from my experience unless you can't tell meters then your a bit screwed either way they'll probably add optic later on

Yes you can zero the gun. No, this doesn't make it effective.

Suppression is pretty useless in this game and only useful against entrenched targets.

The lack of a scope and a lower mag capacity doesn't help this weapon at all compared to the FS auto rifleman.

The C9A2 for the support auto rifleman has a 200 rd mag capacity, a 3.4x scope, and 2 hits at up to ~400m. They have a total of 600 rounds.

The C6A1 Flex has a 75 rd mag capacity (lol), no scope, and 2 hits up to ~600m which is pretty useless without a scope. They have a total of 525 rounds. It has a lower RoF than the C9A2. It has a lower muzzle velocity than the C9A2. it has a lower MOA than the C9A2 but it lacks a scope so who gives a hoot if you're firing in bursts anyway.

The C9A2 direct combat auto rifleman has grenades making him much better at close combat so the C6A1 once again loses in its close combat capabilities.

The MG is just outclassed. they should add a different class to replace this one.

maybe they could add a mounted unit that rides a moose into battle. that would probably be more effective than this mg.

[Geebus]

Plumpotato の投稿を引用：

Both Brits and Canadians don't get a scope on their MG because of the view the British had towards machine guns: Don't give the gun a scope because the gunner will focus on single targets instead of area suppression. This policy extended to the Commonwealth nations like Canada as well.

This is the real answer. I believe the closest thing I have seen to a scope for either gun was a periscope on a tripod.

[MacDuh]

Luke Skywalker の投稿を引用：

Suppression is pretty useless in this game...

Skill issue.

Although I think that suppression is at least 10% weaker than it has to be. It's radius is smaller than it has to be and effects lasts less than it has to be.

[Sgt_Artyom]

Geebus の投稿を引用：

Plumpotato の投稿を引用：

Both Brits and Canadians don't get a scope on their MG because of the view the British had towards machine guns: Don't give the gun a scope because the gunner will focus on single targets instead of area suppression. This policy extended to the Commonwealth nations like Canada as well.

This is the real answer. I believe the closest thing I have seen to a scope for either gun was a periscope on a tripod.

There are many, many pictures of the weapon with optics, usually the same elcan sights as other rifles in service. Takes literally seconds to find photos or video of the weapon being used with them and not mounted on a tripod.

[Baxter]

I really love it when people tell you with a straight face that a gun without optics is just as good as a gun with optics.
Its just a skill issue bruuh.

[John Cena]

MacDuh の投稿を引用：

Luke Skywalker の投稿を引用：

Suppression is pretty useless in this game...

Skill issue.

Although I think that suppression is at least 10% weaker than it has to be. It's radius is smaller than it has to be and effects lasts less than it has to be.

ur right is it a skill issue. any decent player who is being "supressed" simply does not care.

it scares noobs and makes 300m shots harder than thats it.

curious why you think its 10% and not say 9% or 11%. why just 10%?

[MacDuh]

Luke Skywalker の投稿を引用：

curious why you think its 10% and not say 9% or 11%. why just 10%?

It is a round number which wouldn't add any complications to existing calculations with floating-point numbers.

[John Cena]

MacDuh の投稿を引用：

Luke Skywalker の投稿を引用：

curious why you think its 10% and not say 9% or 11%. why just 10%?

It is a round number which wouldn't add any complications to existing calculations with floating-point numbers.

what problems do you forsee with these floating point numbers? wouldn't these problems exist regardless?

[Geebus]

Sgt_Artyom の投稿を引用：

Geebus の投稿を引用：

This is the real answer. I believe the closest thing I have seen to a scope for either gun was a periscope on a tripod.

There are many, many pictures of the weapon with optics, usually the same elcan sights as other rifles in service. Takes literally seconds to find photos or video of the weapon being used with them and not mounted on a tripod.

Are these truly Canadian or British guns or are they guns in US service?

[MacDuh]

Luke Skywalker の投稿を引用：

MacDuh の投稿を引用：

It is a round number which wouldn't add any complications to existing calculations with floating-point numbers.

what problems do you forsee with these floating point numbers? wouldn't these problems exist regardless?

Otherwise mangitude of approximations and therefore of inaccuracy of calculations would grow drastically.