Squad leader guns

[KRAZYNATIVE]

Why dont the squad leaders get like a kar98 or a m1 cause the sub machine guns are trash

[Floringer]

afaik they are considering this. either you can choose between full sized rifle (or carbine, in case of the us) or they will get both.

anyway, I agree that SMGs are kid of rubbish

[Orravan]

Originally posted by Orravan:

It's absolutely inaccurate, not only at long, but also mid-range (which can be frustrating at times, I know, I play Officer a lot).

But it's pretty much the point though: both the Thompson and the MP40 are close-combat weapons meant to storm trenches and buildings (for the Assault role), and to provide self-defense (for the Officer role). To an extent, they can also provide covering fire.

Claiming it's "sh*t" is a stretch though. At short-range it's absolutely lethal and can single-handedly take out an entire enemy squad. Boosting it would make it OP, and would possibly have the ill-effect of pushing people to take on the role of Officer for no other reason than the weapon itself.


Either way, it's on the rest of the squad to provide long-range firepower for their buddies.

Originally posted by Orravan:

If you're struggling to hit targets at 20m, then flank them to get closer, and/or rely on your squadmates to take care of it/provide covering fire. HLL is a teamplay-focused game, you're not supposed to be self-reliant.

What you're expecting of this weapon is not the job of the role you picked to begin with, those weapons are not meant to be accurate at range, they're first and foremost for close-quarter combat.

If the weapon is your main concern, I suggest picking another role. There are 7 more of them for infantry alone.

[Orravan]

Originally posted by Roy Burns:

Why did you quote yourself?

Because the exact same topic have been raised in another thread barely 2 days ago.

[Emme]

Machine guns are fine for what they're supposed to do. But I'd also love to have a selection as SL. At medium to long distances you can only just watch and direct fire.

Dev's said that they would consider the option. Hopefully this will find it's way to the game anytime soon.

[Bonkerz The Monkey]

FWIW I've never had an issue with the Thompson. I've plugged guys from a good distance using it. Never tried the MP 40 though.

[TacticalSandals]

because they want leaders to lead, not be on the front line slinging lead down range.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TacticalSandals:

because they want leaders to lead, not be on the front line slinging lead down range.

Nope not going to accept this
Squad leaders have to be able to protect themselves when going to an area to lay down an OP or Garrison and I have ran into troops SOOOOO many times that I SEE but just cant hit with the MP-40/Tompson it gets annoying. Second by the front line you have a very bad squad leader if they are leading you into a meat grinder.

The squad is set up for distant engagements not close up ones so yea current ♥♥♥♥ is not good and saying yes this person should just sit back and do what exactly?

I play SL all the time so what exactly are you saying the SL should do? Serious question there. Also Squad leaders should "Lead not be on the front line" is not an answer. I am serious what should they be doing during the game?

Personally I set up OP's and Garrisons for my troops and try not to lead them into meat grinders with the rest of the troops. Doing this with an MP-40 is VERY hard because its so easy to get picked off and you have ZERO defense if anyone spots you from more than 10 ft away.

[Orravan]

Originally posted by FireFix13:

Squad leaders have to be able to protect themselves

They already are. They can return fire themselves at close range, and they have 5 squadies nearby able to pick 7 infantry classes not relying on SMGs (out of 9), to engage at medium/long range.

when going to an area to lay down an OP or Garrison and I have ran into troops SOOOOO many times that I SEE but just cant hit with the MP-40/Tompson it gets annoying.

See above. You're not supposed to wander alone, so running into an enemy squad shouldn't be a problem.

The squad is set up for distant engagements not close up ones

The squad is set up for the engagements you can give it. Close range fights are rarer (hence why only 2 classes out of 9 have SMGs), but they do happen, especially when you're mobile and flanking (which you should be).

I play SL all the time so what exactly are you saying the SL should do? Serious question there. Also Squad leaders should "Lead not be on the front line" is not an answer. I am serious what should they be doing during the game?

What he meant is that they're not supposed to be on the frontline of a firefight (unless it's CQC), pretty much like medics.

If you're pinned-down at range and can't repress the need to take down people yourself, take a couple squadies with you to flank and get closer, while the rest of the squad draw fire.

[Ned]

BEAUTIFUL you replied and this shows me how little you have played SL.

OK first up no you use your squad to suppress or attack points on the map while you flank around and set up the best spawn points with a supply guy or ask command to do a supply drop those are the best SL's
They know how to use the map. This already tells me how little you play SL or Command.

Actually because I am a good Squad leader people join me and have mic's and like to play with me and talk and my squad does well. I know how to set up AT's right and stop rush's and know that it requires you have to go to the other side of the map and set up a garrison or op to stop a recon or small squad push.

The MEDIC should always be with the main squad as should all the other classes. Your squad should always be on point trying to cap or defending.

But lets get to the main point shall we?

The current maps we have.

Are NOT CQC they are long range maps. Between the hedgerows and large runs the SMG just doesnt cut it. If you disagree again it shows me how little you play SL.

Shout out to Tactical Realism server TSF Server Auzie server and East Coast server

I'm not sure where you play but the tactics your talking about just dont work.
You know what arty is right or bombing runs do?
Throw a smoke out in the middle of no where a recon spots you and knows thats a SL and boom ya gone baby...

Or is it you would like to see less people playing SL? You just telling people if you dont like the gun dont play the class?

Again with current maps. The gun just doesnt cut it. With Recon Squads out there its too easy to pick off an entire squad by its self in the open so yea..

Lets hear some tactics buddy...

[bennydigitall]

I would gladly go SL more often if they allowed the choice of a rifle. SMG sucks.

[TacticalSandals]

Originally posted by FireFix13:

Originally posted by TacticalSandals:

because they want leaders to lead, not be on the front line slinging lead down range.

Nope not going to accept this
Squad leaders have to be able to protect themselves when going to an area to lay down an OP or Garrison and I have ran into troops SOOOOO many times that I SEE but just cant hit with the MP-40/Tompson it gets annoying. Second by the front line you have a very bad squad leader if they are leading you into a meat grinder.

The squad is set up for distant engagements not close up ones so yea current ♥♥♥♥ is not good and saying yes this person should just sit back and do what exactly?

I play SL all the time so what exactly are you saying the SL should do? Serious question there. Also Squad leaders should "Lead not be on the front line" is not an answer. I am serious what should they be doing during the game?

Personally I set up OP's and Garrisons for my troops and try not to lead them into meat grinders with the rest of the troops. Doing this with an MP-40 is VERY hard because its so easy to get picked off and you have ZERO defense if anyone spots you from more than 10 ft away.

I dont care if you accept it or not, its why it is that way. so that people dont jump into the roles just for a good weapon and not actually do what they are meant to. if you dont like it then don't play as SL, or dont play at all I really don't care either way my dude its no skin off my back.

[Uncle Bunkle Beard]

+1 to O.P.

Ignore the reta-rds telling you to accept this EA game as it is.

What I find funny is that you can hip fire MGs more effectively than you can use an SMG in this game. Quality game balance it surely lacks.

[Orravan]

Originally posted by FireFix13:

(...)

Are you seriously expecting me to engage a discussion with you, regarding the exact same topic, on several threads at once?

I've already stated my opinion and spent enough time explaining it. Several times. I don't think there's much more to add.

Originally posted by Uncle Bunkle Beard:

Ignore the reta-rds telling you to accept this EA game as it is.

That's absolutely not what is being said here.

[Uncle Bunkle Beard]

Why not? Might get noticed by the developer more and pushed up their priority list.

Plus your comments weren't exactly constructive on a sensible compromise. Very much on long the lines of "get gud" and "tough sh!t" so why not indeed...

[Orravan]

Originally posted by Uncle Bunkle Beard:

Why not? Might get noticed by the developer more and pushed up their priority list.

I was refering to FireFix13 getting in an argument with me in several similar threads at once.
I'm not gonna have the exact same discussion with him twice. Especially with the way he's replying to me.

But anyway, spamming threads is not how you make your opinion or wishes more valid.
"Whoever shout the louder is right" is a pointless and obnoxious game to play.
Especially on forums.

Plus your comments weren't exactly constructive on a sensible compromise. Very much on long the lines of "get gud" and "tough sh!t" so why not indeed...

You got me wrong then. I consider myself an average player, and I'm not implying for a second that you're a bad player. I'm merely offering another perspective on how and why giving officers SMGs is actually relevant, based on my own experience of the mechanics, and the experience of people I played with.

I get that people may wish to be able to choose weapons, and I've stated than I'm not against this (although you may be very much surprised with the possibly ill consequences it may have for the officer role and teamplay altogether if it becomes possible).

But justifying it by claiming that SMGs are "sh*t" and that officers are "broken" because of them is preposterous. Because it's simply wrong, as a lot of people have no issue with them.